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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

749 related items for PubMed ID: 16078098

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Do item-writing flaws reduce examinations psychometric quality?
    Pais J, Silva A, Guimarães B, Povo A, Coelho E, Silva-Pereira F, Lourinho I, Ferreira MA, Severo M.
    BMC Res Notes; 2016 Aug 11; 9(1):399. PubMed ID: 27516160
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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 11; 30(6):539-43. PubMed ID: 20053488
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Use of flawed multiple-choice items by the New England Journal of Medicine for continuing medical education.
    Stagnaro-Green AS, Downing SM.
    Med Teach; 2006 Sep 11; 28(6):566-8. PubMed ID: 17074708
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Use of a committee review process to improve the quality of course examinations.
    Wallach PM, Crespo LM, Holtzman KZ, Galbraith RM, Swanson DB.
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2006 Feb 11; 11(1):61-8. PubMed ID: 16583285
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules.
    Collins J.
    Radiographics; 2006 Feb 11; 26(2):543-51. PubMed ID: 16549616
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. It takes only 100 true-false items to test medical students: true or false?
    Pamphlett R.
    Med Teach; 2005 Aug 11; 27(5):468-72. PubMed ID: 16147803
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Test performance of a local examination at a nonlocal site for evaluation of surgical clerks.
    Dunnington G, Witzke D, Hassett J, Reisner L, Fulginiti J, Rubeck R.
    Surgery; 1990 Aug 11; 108(2):236-9. PubMed ID: 2382223
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Construct-irrelevant variance and flawed test questions: Do multiple-choice item-writing principles make any difference?
    Downing SM.
    Acad Med; 2002 Oct 11; 77(10 Suppl):S103-4. PubMed ID: 12377719
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. How specific is case specificity?
    Norman G, Bordage G, Page G, Keane D.
    Med Educ; 2006 Jul 11; 40(7):618-23. PubMed ID: 16836533
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Knowledge of dental faculty in gulf cooperation council states of multiple-choice questions' item writing flaws.
    Kowash M, Alhobeira H, Hussein I, Al Halabi M, Khan S.
    Med Educ Online; 2020 Dec 11; 25(1):1812224. PubMed ID: 32835640
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. The second time around: accounting for retest effects on oral examinations.
    Raymond MR, Luciw-Dubas UA.
    Eval Health Prof; 2010 Sep 11; 33(3):386-403. PubMed ID: 20801978
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Validity of multiple-choice examinations in surgery.
    Stillman RM.
    Surgery; 1984 Jul 11; 96(1):97-101. PubMed ID: 6740501
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Faculty development on item writing substantially improves item quality.
    Naeem N, van der Vleuten C, Alfaris EA.
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2012 Aug 11; 17(3):369-76. PubMed ID: 21837548
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Writing Multiple Choice Questions-Has the Student Become the Master?
    Pham H, Court-Kowalski S, Chan H, Devitt P.
    Teach Learn Med; 2023 Aug 11; 35(3):356-367. PubMed ID: 35491868
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Measurement practices: methods for developing content-valid student examinations.
    Bridge PD, Musial J, Frank R, Roe T, Sawilowsky S.
    Med Teach; 2003 Jul 11; 25(4):414-21. PubMed ID: 12893554
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Rasch techniques for detecting bias in performance assessments: an example comparing the performance of native and non-native speakers on a test of academic English.
    Elder C, McNamara T, Congdon P.
    J Appl Meas; 2003 Jul 11; 4(2):181-97. PubMed ID: 12748409
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 38.