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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8736188)

  • 1. A closer look at cueing effects in multiple-choice questions.
    Schuwirth LW; van der Vleuten CP; Donkers HH
    Med Educ; 1996 Jan; 30(1):44-9. PubMed ID: 8736188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Computerized long-menu questions as an alternative to open-ended questions in computerized assessment.
    Schuwirth LW; van der Vleuten CP; Stoffers HE; Peperkamp AG
    Med Educ; 1996 Jan; 30(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 8736189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The impact of cueing on written examinations of clinical decision making: a case study.
    Desjardins I; Touchie C; Pugh D; Wood TJ; Humphrey-Murto S
    Med Educ; 2014 Mar; 48(3):255-61. PubMed ID: 24528460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A solution to the cueing effects of multiple choice questions: the Un-Q format.
    Veloski JJ; Rabinowitz HK; Robeson MR
    Med Educ; 1993 Jul; 27(4):371-5. PubMed ID: 8412880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparison between Long-Menu and Open-Ended Questions in computerized medical assessments. A randomized controlled trial.
    Rotthoff T; Baehring T; Dicken HD; Fahron U; Richter B; Fischer MR; Scherbaum WA
    BMC Med Educ; 2006 Oct; 6():50. PubMed ID: 17032439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cueing in multiple choice questions: a reliable, valid and economical solution.
    Veloski JJ; Rabinowitz HK; Robeson MR
    Res Med Educ; 1988; 27():195-200. PubMed ID: 3218856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Impact of Repeated Exposure to Items.
    O'Neill TR; Sun L; Peabody MR; Royal KD
    Teach Learn Med; 2015; 27(4):404-9. PubMed ID: 26507998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Very-short-answer questions: reliability, discrimination and acceptability.
    Sam AH; Field SM; Collares CF; van der Vleuten CPM; Wass VJ; Melville C; Harris J; Meeran K
    Med Educ; 2018 Apr; 52(4):447-455. PubMed ID: 29388317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Long-menu questions in computer-based assessments: a retrospective observational study.
    Cerutti B; Blondon K; Galetto A
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 Feb; 16():55. PubMed ID: 26861755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?
    Hift RJ
    BMC Med Educ; 2014 Nov; 14():249. PubMed ID: 25431359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Patients don't present with five choices: an alternative to multiple-choice tests in assessing physicians' competence.
    Veloski JJ; Rabinowitz HK; Robeson MR; Young PR
    Acad Med; 1999 May; 74(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 10353288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Using automatic item generation to create multiple-choice test items.
    Gierl MJ; Lai H; Turner SR
    Med Educ; 2012 Aug; 46(8):757-65. PubMed ID: 22803753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Does recruitment lead to retention? Rural Clinical School training experiences and subsequent intern choices.
    Eley D; Baker P
    Rural Remote Health; 2006; 6(1):511. PubMed ID: 19469660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 16. Comparing assessments of students' knowledge by computerized open-ended and multiple-choice tests.
    Anbar M
    Acad Med; 1991 Jul; 66(7):420-2. PubMed ID: 2059271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Multiple true-false items: a comparison of scoring algorithms.
    Lahner FM; Lörwald AC; Bauer D; Nouns ZM; Krebs R; Guttormsen S; Fischer MR; Huwendiek S
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2018 Aug; 23(3):455-463. PubMed ID: 29189963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Factors underlying performance on written tests of knowledge.
    Norman GR; Smith EK; Powles AC; Rooney PJ; Henry NL; Dodd PE
    Med Educ; 1987 Jul; 21(4):297-304. PubMed ID: 3626897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A computer-based test item-bank for cognitive assessment of medical students during a clinical medicine clerkship.
    Brooks CM; Dismukes WE; Williams GR; Brown S
    Med Educ; 1982 Jan; 16(1):12-6. PubMed ID: 7057718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.