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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33463588)

  • 61. Psychometric analysis of Anatomy MCQs in Modular examination.
    Islam ZU; Usmani A
    Pak J Med Sci; 2017; 33(5):1138-1143. PubMed ID: 29142553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Discrimination Power of Short Essay Questions Versus Multiple Choice Questions as an Assessment Tool in Clinical Biochemistry.
    Eldakhakhny B; Elsamanoudy AZ
    Cureus; 2023 Feb; 15(2):e35427. PubMed ID: 36987482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in an innovative curriculum in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
    Salih KEMA; Jibo A; Ishaq M; Khan S; Mohammed OA; Al-Shahrani AM; Abbas M
    J Family Med Prim Care; 2020 Jul; 9(7):3663-3668. PubMed ID: 33102347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. 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 Pract; 2006 Dec; 6(6):354-63. PubMed ID: 19040902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Evaluation of medical students in radiology. Written testing using uncued multiple-choice questions.
    Fajardo LL; Chan KM
    Invest Radiol; 1993 Oct; 28(10):964-8. PubMed ID: 8262753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. The effect on student performance of scrambling questions and their stems in medical colleges admission tests.
    Khan JS; Tabasum S; Mukhtar O; Iqbal M
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2013 Dec; 23(12):904-6. PubMed ID: 24305000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. 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]  

  • 68. Climbing Bloom's taxonomy pyramid: Lessons from a graduate histology course.
    Zaidi NB; Hwang C; Scott S; Stallard S; Purkiss J; Hortsch M
    Anat Sci Educ; 2017 Sep; 10(5):456-464. PubMed ID: 28231408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Flaws of Multiple Choice Questions in Teacher-Constructed Nursing Examinations: A Pilot Descriptive Study.
    Hijji BM
    J Nurs Educ; 2017 Aug; 56(8):490-496. PubMed ID: 28787072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Using item analysis to evaluate hand hygiene self-assessments at Alberta health services.
    Kumar V
    Am J Infect Control; 2023 Jun; 51(6):683-686. PubMed ID: 36181918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. The effects of violating standard item writing principles on tests and students: the consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education.
    Downing SM
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2005; 10(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 16078098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. 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]  

  • 73. A practical discussion to avoid common pitfalls when constructing multiple choice questions items.
    Al-Faris EA; Alorainy IA; Abdel-Hameed AA; Al-Rukban MO
    J Family Community Med; 2010 May; 17(2):96-102. PubMed ID: 21359033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Small group learning: effect on item analysis and accuracy of self-assessment of medical students.
    Biswas SS; Jain V; Agrawal V; Bindra M
    Educ Health (Abingdon); 2015; 28(1):16-21. PubMed ID: 26261109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. 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]  

  • 76. Creating assessments as an active learning strategy: what are students' perceptions? A mixed methods study.
    Kurtz JB; Lourie MA; Holman EE; Grob KL; Monrad SU
    Med Educ Online; 2019 Dec; 24(1):1630239. PubMed ID: 31248355
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Choosing medical assessments: Does the multiple-choice question make the grade?
    Pham H; Trigg M; Wu S; O'Connell A; Harry C; Barnard J; Devitt P
    Educ Health (Abingdon); 2018; 31(2):65-71. PubMed ID: 30531047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Item development process and analysis of 50 case-based items for implementation on the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination.
    Park IS; Suh YO; Park HS; Kang SY; Kim KS; Kim GH; Choi YH; Kim HJ
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2017; 14():20. PubMed ID: 28900070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Crowdsourcing for assessment items to support adaptive learning.
    Tackett S; Raymond M; Desai R; Haist SA; Morales A; Gaglani S; Clyman SG
    Med Teach; 2018 Aug; 40(8):838-841. PubMed ID: 30096987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.