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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28442942)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A comparison of clinical-scenario (case cluster) versus stand-alone multiple choice questions in a problem-based learning environment in undergraduate medicine.
    Vuma S; Sa B
    J Taibah Univ Med Sci; 2017 Feb; 12(1):14-26. PubMed ID: 31435208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Assessment of the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions in the Surgery Course for an Integrated Curriculum, University of Bisha College of Medicine, Saudi Arabia.
    Al Ameer AY
    Cureus; 2023 Dec; 15(12):e50441. PubMed ID: 38222171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The Effect of a One-Day Workshop on the Quality of Framing Multiple Choice Questions in Physiology in a Medical College in India.
    Dhanvijay AKD; Dhokane N; Balgote S; Kumari A; Juhi A; Mondal H; Gupta P
    Cureus; 2023 Aug; 15(8):e44049. PubMed ID: 37746478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of Multiple-Choice Questions by Item Analysis, from an Online Internal Assessment of 6
    Bhattacherjee S; Mukherjee A; Bhandari K; Rout AJ
    Indian J Community Med; 2022; 47(1):92-95. PubMed ID: 35368481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Item analysis of multiple choice questions: A quality assurance test for an assessment tool.
    Kumar D; Jaipurkar R; Shekhar A; Sikri G; Srinivas V
    Med J Armed Forces India; 2021 Feb; 77(Suppl 1):S85-S89. PubMed ID: 33612937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quality of multiple-choice questions in medical internship qualification examination determined by item response theory at Debre Tabor University, Ethiopia.
    Belay LM; Sendekie TY; Eyowas FA
    BMC Med Educ; 2022 Aug; 22(1):635. PubMed ID: 35989323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reducing the number of options on multiple-choice questions: response time, psychometrics and standard setting.
    Schneid SD; Armour C; Park YS; Yudkowsky R; Bordage G
    Med Educ; 2014 Oct; 48(10):1020-7. PubMed ID: 25200022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Item Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions at the Department of Paediatrics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain.
    Kheyami D; Jaradat A; Al-Shibani T; Ali FA
    Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J; 2018 Feb; 18(1):e68-e74. PubMed ID: 29666684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing Item Performance on Three- Versus Four-Option Multiple Choice Questions in a Veterinary Toxicology Course.
    Royal K; Dorman D
    Vet Sci; 2018 Jun; 5(2):. PubMed ID: 29890727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. An investigation into the optimal number of distractors in single-best answer exams.
    Kilgour JM; Tayyaba S
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2016 Aug; 21(3):571-85. PubMed ID: 26597452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.
    Rezigalla AA; Eleragi AMESA; Elhussein AB; Alfaifi J; ALGhamdi MA; Al Ameer AY; Yahia AIO; Mohammed OA; Adam MIE
    BMC Med Educ; 2024 Apr; 24(1):445. PubMed ID: 38658912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.