204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30362027)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. An experimental comparison of multiple-choice and short-answer questions on a high-stakes test for medical students.
Mee J; Pandian R; Wolczynski J; Morales A; Paniagua M; Harik P; Baldwin P; Clauser BE
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2024 Jul; 29(3):783-801. PubMed ID: 37665413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Nonfunctional distractor analysis: An indicator for quality of Multiple choice questions.
Sajjad M; Iltaf S; Khan RA
Pak J Med Sci; 2020; 36(5):982-986. PubMed ID: 32704275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
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. Adding to the debate on the numbers of options for MCQs: the case for not being limited to MCQs with three, four or five options.
Tweed M
BMC Med Educ; 2019 Sep; 19(1):354. PubMed ID: 31521151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments.
Tarrant M; Ware J
Med Educ; 2008 Feb; 42(2):198-206. PubMed ID: 18230093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments.
Tarrant M; Knierim A; Hayes SK; Ware J
Nurse Educ Today; 2006 Dec; 26(8):662-71. PubMed ID: 17014932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules.
Collins J
Radiographics; 2006; 26(2):543-51. PubMed ID: 16549616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Quality assurance of item writing: during the introduction of multiple choice questions in medicine for high stakes examinations.
Ware J; Vik T
Med Teach; 2009 Mar; 31(3):238-43. PubMed ID: 18825568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of a longitudinal faculty development program on the quality of multiple-choice question item writing in medical education.
Owolabi LF; Adamu B; Taura MG; Isa AI; Jibo AM; Abdul-Razek R; Alharthi MM; Alghamdi M
Ann Afr Med; 2021; 20(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 33727512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
