• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Construct-irrelevant variance and flawed test questions: Do multiple-choice item-writing principles make any difference?

作者信息

Downing Stevn M

机构信息

Visiting Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Medicine, Department of Medical Education, 808 South Wood Street, Chicago, IL 60612-7309, USA.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2002 Oct;77(10 Suppl):S103-4. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200210001-00032.

DOI:10.1097/00001888-200210001-00032
PMID:12377719
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
Construct-irrelevant variance and flawed test questions: Do multiple-choice item-writing principles make any difference?与结构无关的方差和有缺陷的测试问题：多项选择题编写原则有作用吗？
Acad Med. 2002 Oct;77(10 Suppl):S103-4. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200210001-00032.
2
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.违反标准试题编写原则对考试及学生的影响：医学教育中使用有缺陷的试题对成绩考试的后果。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2005;10(2):133-43. doi: 10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5.
3
Writing Multiple Choice Outcome Questions to Assess Knowledge and Competence.编写多项选择题结果类问题以评估知识和能力。
J Contin Educ Nurs. 2015 Nov;46(11):481-3. doi: 10.3928/00220124-20151020-11.
4
Writing medical student and resident performance evaluations: beyond "performed as expected".撰写医学生和住院医师绩效评估：超越“表现符合预期”。
Pediatrics. 2014 May;133(5):766-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-0418. Epub 2014 Apr 14.
5
Sooner or later? USMLE step 1 performance and test administration date at the end of the second year.
Acad Med. 2002 Oct;77(10 Suppl):S17-9. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200210001-00006.
6
Impact of a longitudinal faculty development program on the quality of multiple-choice question item writing in medical education.纵向教师发展计划对医学教育中多项选择题编写质量的影响。
Ann Afr Med. 2021 Jan-Mar;20(1):46-51. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_14_20.
7
The assessment of Global Minimum Essential Requirements in medical education.医学教育全球最低基本要求的评估
Med Teach. 2003 Nov;25(6):589-95. doi: 10.1080/0142159032000151295.
8
The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments.高风险护理评估中使用的多项选择题的题目编写缺陷频率。
Nurse Educ Today. 2006 Dec;26(8):662-71. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.07.006. Epub 2006 Oct 2.
9
Analysis of psychometric properties of the modified SETQ tool in undergraduate medical education.本科医学教育中改良版SETQ工具的心理测量特性分析
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Mar 16;17(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0893-4.
10
Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules.终身学习的教育技巧：为继续医学教育活动和自我评估模块编写多项选择题。
Radiographics. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):543-51. doi: 10.1148/rg.262055145.

引用本文的文献

1
A Qualitative Exploration of Student Cognition When Answering Text-Only or Image-Based Histology Multiple-Choice Questions.对学生在回答纯文本或基于图像的组织学选择题时的认知进行的定性探索。
Med Sci Educ. 2024 Jul 24;34(6):1317-1329. doi: 10.1007/s40670-024-02104-x. eCollection 2024 Dec.
2
Utility of RAND/UCLA appropriateness method in validating multiple-choice questions on ECG.兰德/加州大学洛杉矶分校适宜性方法在验证心电图多项选择题中的效用。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Apr 24;24(1):448. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05446-7.
3
Questioning the questions: Methods used by medical schools to review internal assessment items.
质疑这些问题：医学院校用于审查内部评估项目的方法。
MedEdPublish (2016). 2021 Feb 5;10:37. doi: 10.15694/mep.2021.000037.1. eCollection 2021.
4
Educator's blueprint: A how-to guide for developing high-quality multiple-choice questions.教育者的蓝图：开发高质量多项选择题的操作指南。
AEM Educ Train. 2023 Jan 24;7(1):e10836. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10836. eCollection 2023 Feb.
5
Construction and Writing Flaws of the Multiple-Choice Questions in the Published Test Banks of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adoption, Caution, or Mitigation?已出版的妇产科题库中选择题的编写缺陷：采用、谨慎对待还是减轻？
Avicenna J Med. 2022 Aug 31;12(3):138-147. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1755332. eCollection 2022 Jul.
6
Motivations of assessment item writers in medical programs: a qualitative study.医学专业评估项目编写者的动机：一项定性研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):334. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02229-8.
7
National survey of evaluation practices and performance-guided resource allocation at German medical schools.德国医学院校评估实践与绩效导向资源分配的全国性调查。
Ger Med Sci. 2019 Apr 18;17:Doc04. doi: 10.3205/000270. eCollection 2019.
8
Barriers and facilitators to writing quality items for medical school assessments - a scoping review.编写医学院评估质量项目的障碍和促进因素：范围综述。
BMC Med Educ. 2019 May 2;19(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1544-8.
9
Evaluation of Cognitive levels and Item writing flaws in Medical Pharmacology Internal Assessment Examinations.医学药理学内部评估考试中认知水平及试题编写缺陷的评估
Pak J Med Sci. 2017 Jul-Aug;33(4):866-870. doi: 10.12669/pjms.334.12887.
10
The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value.试题编写缺陷和试题复杂度对考试试题难度及区分度的影响。
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Sep 29;16(1):250. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0773-3.