287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30404624)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of long-menu and single-best-answer multiple choice questions in computer-based summative assessments: a randomised controlled trial.
Cerutti B; Stollar F; Escher M; Blondon K; Aujesky S; Nendaz M; Galetto-Lacour A
BMC Med Educ; 2019 Jun; 19(1):219. PubMed ID: 31215430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Formative student-authored question bank: perceptions, question quality and association with summative performance.
Walsh JL; Harris BHL; Denny P; Smith P
Postgrad Med J; 2018 Feb; 94(1108):97-103. PubMed ID: 28866607
[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. 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]
11. Writing Multiple Choice Questions-Has the Student Become the Master?
Pham H; Court-Kowalski S; Chan H; Devitt P
Teach Learn Med; 2023; 35(3):356-367. PubMed ID: 35491868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Multiple-choice testing in anatomy.
Nnodim JO
Med Educ; 1992 Jul; 26(4):301-9. PubMed ID: 1630332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Quantitative analysis of single best answer multiple choice questions in pharmaceutics.
Al Muhaissen SA; Ratka A; Akour A; AlKhatib HS
Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2019 Mar; 11(3):251-257. PubMed ID: 30904146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Psychometrics of Multiple Choice Questions with Non-Functioning Distracters: Implications to Medical Education.
Deepak KK; Al-Umran KU; AI-Sheikh MH; Dkoli BV; Al-Rubaish A
Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 2015; 59(4):428-35. PubMed ID: 27530011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
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. Effectiveness of e-Learning in a Medical School 2.0 Model: Comparison of Item Analysis for Student-Generated vs. Faculty-Generated Multiple-Choice Questions.
Janzen BW; Sommerfeld C; Gooi ACC
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2019; 257():184-188. PubMed ID: 30741193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
