These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28367465)

  • 1. The Impact of 3-Option Responses to Multiple-Choice Questions on Guessing Strategies and Cut Score Determinations.
    Royal KD; Stockdale MR
    J Adv Med Educ Prof; 2017 Apr; 5(2):84-89. PubMed ID: 28367465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using Automatic Item Generation to Improve the Quality of MCQ Distractors.
    Lai H; Gierl MJ; Touchie C; Pugh D; Boulais AP; De Champlain A
    Teach Learn Med; 2016; 28(2):166-73. PubMed ID: 26849247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Analysis of MCQ and distractor use in a large first year Health Faculty Foundation Program: assessing the effects of changing from five to four options.
    Fozzard N; Pearson A; du Toit E; Naug H; Wen W; Peak IR
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Nov; 18(1):252. PubMed ID: 30404624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The optimal number of options for multiple-choice questions on high-stakes tests: application of a revised index for detecting nonfunctional distractors.
    Raymond MR; Stevens C; Bucak SD
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2019 Mar; 24(1):141-150. PubMed ID: 30362027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Relations of the Number of Functioning Distractors With the Item Difficulty Index and the Item Discrimination Power in the Multiple Choice Questions.
    Chauhan GR; Chauhan BR; Vaza JV; Chauhan PR
    Cureus; 2023 Jul; 15(7):e42492. PubMed ID: 37644928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Scoring Single-Response Multiple-Choice Items: Scoping Review and Comparison of Different Scoring Methods.
    Kanzow AF; Schmidt D; Kanzow P
    JMIR Med Educ; 2023 May; 9():e44084. PubMed ID: 37001510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of 3- and 4-option multiple-choice items for medical subspecialty in-training examinations.
    Chen D; Harman AE; Sun H; Ye T; Gaiser RR
    BMC Med Educ; 2023 Apr; 23(1):286. PubMed ID: 37106417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Decreasing the options' number in multiple choice questions in the assessment of senior medical students and its effect on exam psychometrics and distractors' function.
    Al-Lawama M; Kumwenda B
    BMC Med Educ; 2023 Apr; 23(1):212. PubMed ID: 37016397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis.
    Tarrant M; Ware J; Mohammed AM
    BMC Med Educ; 2009 Jul; 9():40. PubMed ID: 19580681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Rarely selected distractors in high stakes medical multiple-choice examinations and their recognition by item authors: a simulation and survey.
    Rogausch A; Hofer R; Krebs R
    BMC Med Educ; 2010 Nov; 10():85. PubMed ID: 21106066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value.
    Rush BR; Rankin DC; White BJ
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 Sep; 16(1):250. PubMed ID: 27681933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison between three option, four option and five option multiple choice question tests for quality parameters: A randomized study.
    Vegada B; Shukla A; Khilnani A; Charan J; Desai C
    Indian J Pharmacol; 2016; 48(5):571-575. PubMed ID: 27721545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments.
    Tarrant M; Ware J
    Nurse Educ Today; 2010 Aug; 30(6):539-43. PubMed ID: 20053488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A psychometric analysis of a newly developed summative, multiple choice question assessment adapted from Canada to a Middle Eastern context.
    Pawluk SA; Shah K; Minhas R; Rainkie D; Wilby KJ
    Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2018 Aug; 10(8):1026-1032. PubMed ID: 30314537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison in the quality of distractors in three and four options type of multiple choice questions.
    Rahma NAA; Shamad MMA; Idris MEA; Elfaki OA; Elfakey WEM; Salih KMA
    Adv Med Educ Pract; 2017; 8():287-291. PubMed ID: 28442942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Psychometric characteristics and response times for content-parallel extended-matching and one-best-answer items in relation to number of options.
    Swanson DB; Holtzman KZ; Allbee K; Clauser BE
    Acad Med; 2006 Oct; 81(10 Suppl):S52-5. PubMed ID: 17001136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Item statistics derived from three-option versions of multiple-choice questions are usually as robust as four- or five-option versions: implications for exam design.
    Loudon C; Macias-Muñoz A
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2018 Dec; 42(4):565-575. PubMed ID: 30192185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving multiple-choice questions to better assess dental student knowledge: distractor utilization in oral and maxillofacial pathology course examinations.
    McMahan CA; Pinckard RN; Prihoda TJ; Hendricson WD; Jones AC
    J Dent Educ; 2013 Dec; 77(12):1593-609. PubMed ID: 24319131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Multiple choice questions: a literature review on the optimal number of options.
    Vyas R; Supe A
    Natl Med J India; 2008; 21(3):130-3. PubMed ID: 19004145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multiple-choice testing in anatomy.
    Nnodim JO
    Med Educ; 1992 Jul; 26(4):301-9. PubMed ID: 1630332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.