• 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

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。

The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments.

作者信息

Tarrant Marie, Knierim Aimee, Hayes Sasha K, Ware James

机构信息

Department of Nursing Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, 4/F, William M.W. Mong Block, 21 Sassoon Road, Hong Kong.

出版信息

Nurse Educ Today. 2006 Dec;26(8):662-71. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.07.006. Epub 2006 Oct 2.

DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2006.07.006
PMID:17014932
Abstract

Multiple-choice questions are a common assessment method in nursing examinations. Few nurse educators, however, have formal preparation in constructing multiple-choice questions. Consequently, questions used in baccalaureate nursing assessments often contain item-writing flaws, or violations to accepted item-writing guidelines. In one nursing department, 2770 MCQs were collected from tests and examinations administered over a five-year period from 2001 to 2005. Questions were evaluated for 19 frequently occurring item-writing flaws, for cognitive level, for question source, and for the distribution of correct answers. Results show that almost half (46.2%) of the questions contained violations of item-writing guidelines and over 90% were written at low cognitive levels. Only a small proportion of questions were teacher generated (14.1%), while 36.2% were taken from testbanks and almost half (49.4%) had no source identified. MCQs written at a lower cognitive level were significantly more likely to contain item-writing flaws. While there was no relationship between the source of the question and item-writing flaws, teacher-generated questions were more likely to be written at higher cognitive levels (p<0.001). Correct answers were evenly distributed across all four options and no bias was noted in the placement of correct options. Further training in item-writing is recommended for all faculty members who are responsible for developing tests. Pre-test review and quality assessment is also recommended to reduce the occurrence of item-writing flaws and to improve the quality of test questions.

摘要

多项选择题是护理考试中常用的一种评估方法。然而,很少有护理教育工作者接受过编写多项选择题的正规培训。因此,本科护理评估中使用的问题往往存在题目编写缺陷,或者违反了公认的题目编写准则。在一个护理系,从2001年到2005年的五年时间里,从测试和考试中收集了2770道多项选择题。对这些问题进行了评估,检查是否存在19种常见的题目编写缺陷、认知水平、问题来源以及正确答案的分布情况。结果显示,几乎一半(46.2%)的问题存在违反题目编写准则的情况,超过90%的问题编写的认知水平较低。只有一小部分问题是教师编写的(14.1%),而36.2%是从题库中选取的,几乎一半(49.4%)的问题来源不明。认知水平较低的多项选择题更有可能存在题目编写缺陷。虽然问题来源与题目编写缺陷之间没有关系,但教师编写的问题更有可能具有较高的认知水平(p<0.001)。正确答案在所有四个选项中均匀分布,在正确选项的位置上没有发现偏差。建议对所有负责出题的教员进行题目编写方面的进一步培训。还建议进行预测试审查和质量评估,以减少题目编写缺陷的出现,提高试题质量。

相似文献

1
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.
2
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项目编写缺陷频率。
Nurse Educ Pract. 2006 Dec;6(6):354-63. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2006.07.002. Epub 2006 Nov 13.
3
Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments.高风险护理评估中多项选择题的命题缺陷对学生成绩的影响。
Med Educ. 2008 Feb;42(2):198-206. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.x.
4
High time for a change: psychometric analysis of multiple-choice questions in nursing.是时候做出改变了:护理专业选择题的心理测量分析
Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2012 Nov 26;9:/j/ijnes.2012.9.issue-1/1548-923X.2487/1548-923X.2487.xml. doi: 10.1515/1548-923X.2487.
5
Quality assurance of item writing: during the introduction of multiple choice questions in medicine for high stakes examinations.项目编写的质量保证:在高风险考试中引入医学多项选择题时。
Med Teach. 2009 Mar;31(3):238-43. doi: 10.1080/01421590802155597.
6
Assessment of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions.多项选择题中题目编写缺陷的评估
J Nurses Prof Dev. 2013 Mar-Apr;29(2):52-7; quiz E1-2. doi: 10.1097/NND.0b013e318286c2f1.
7
A comparison of the psychometric properties of three- and four-option multiple-choice questions in nursing assessments.三种和四种选项多项选择题在护理评估中的心理测量特性比较。
Nurse Educ Today. 2010 Aug;30(6):539-43. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.11.002. Epub 2010 Jan 6.
8
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.
9
Flaws of Multiple Choice Questions in Teacher-Constructed Nursing Examinations: A Pilot Descriptive Study.教师自编护理考试中选择题的缺陷:一项初步描述性研究
J Nurs Educ. 2017 Aug 1;56(8):490-496. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20170712-08.
10
Developing and evaluating innovative items for the NCLEX: Part 2, item characteristics and cognitive processing.开发和评估用于美国国家执业护士考试的创新试题:第2部分,试题特征与认知过程
Nurse Educ. 2009 May-Jun;34(3):109-13. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0b013e31819fcae8.

引用本文的文献

1
Pilot Study on Using Large Language Models for Educational Resource Development in Japanese Radiological Technologist Exams.利用大语言模型进行日本放射技师考试教育资源开发的初步研究。
Med Sci Educ. 2025 Jan 18;35(2):919-927. doi: 10.1007/s40670-024-02251-1. eCollection 2025 Apr.
2
AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination.用于医学教育的人工智能生成与人工生成的多项选择题:一项在高风险考试中的队列研究
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Feb 8;25(1):208. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-06796-6.
3
Evaluating the quality of multiple-choice question pilot database: A global educator-created tool for concept-based pharmacology learning.
评估多选题预测试题库的质量:基于全球教育者创建的药理学概念学习工具。
Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2024 Oct;12(5):e70004. doi: 10.1002/prp2.70004.
4
Associations between item characteristics and statistical performance for paediatric medical student multiple choice assessments.儿科医学生多项选择题评估中题目特征与统计表现之间的关联
MedEdPublish (2016). 2023 Nov 8;13:270. doi: 10.12688/mep.19764.1. eCollection 2023.
5
Examining the impact of specific types of item-writing flaws on student performance and psychometric properties of the multiple choice question.考察特定类型的命题缺陷对学生成绩以及多项选择题心理测量特性的影响。
MedEdPublish (2016). 2018 Oct 2;7:225. doi: 10.15694/mep.2018.0000225.1. eCollection 2018.
6
Scoring Single-Response Multiple-Choice Items: Scoping Review and Comparison of Different Scoring Methods.单项选择题评分:不同评分方法的范围审查与比较
JMIR Med Educ. 2023 May 19;9:e44084. doi: 10.2196/44084.
7
Evaluation of the quality of multiple-choice questions according to the students' academic level.根据学生的学业水平评估多项选择题的质量。
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Nov 11;22(1):779. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03844-3.
8
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.
9
Faculty development program assists the new faculty in constructing high-quality short answer questions; a quasi-experimental study.教师发展项目协助新教师构建高质量的简答题;一项准实验研究。
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 29;16(3):e0249319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249319. eCollection 2021.
10
Knowledge of dental faculty in gulf cooperation council states of multiple-choice questions' item writing flaws.海湾合作委员会国家牙科教师对多选题项目编写缺陷的认识。
Med Educ Online. 2020 Dec;25(1):1812224. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2020.1812224.