• 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

如何为高风险考试编写高质量问题。

How to write high-quality questions for a high-stakes examination.

机构信息

MRCP(UK) Central Office, Royal College of Physicians, London.

出版信息

Clin Med (Lond). 2011 Jun;11(3):227-30. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.11-3-227.

DOI:10.7861/clinmedicine.11-3-227
PMID:21902072
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4953312/
Abstract

Both the MRCP(UK) written examinations and the specialty certificate examinations (SCEs) use single-best-answer questions to assess the knowledge and problem-solving skills of physicians in training. Since 1999, specialists and senior trainees have created large banks of questions for these examinations that cover the relevant curricula. Question-writing workshops provide detailed guidance on the design of questions that discriminate between candidates of differing ability, in a format and a style that aid speed reading and comprehension. Each question drafted is subjected to face-to-face peer review and subsequent stages of academic scrutiny before reaching the question bank, and later during the exacting processes of question selection and standard setting. Feedback to question writers at every level of scrutiny helps to support the development of question-writing competence, and the analysis of individual question performance provides some insight into optimal question design.

摘要

MRCP(UK) 理论考试和专业证书考试(SCEs)均采用单项最佳答案问题来评估培训医师的知识和解决问题的能力。自 1999 年以来,专家和高级学员已经为这些考试创建了涵盖相关课程的大量问题库。问题编写研讨会为问题设计提供了详细的指导,这些问题可以区分不同能力的候选人,采用的格式和风格有助于快速阅读和理解。每个起草的问题都要经过面对面的同行评审和后续的学术审查,然后才能进入题库,之后在严格的问题选择和标准制定过程中还要进行审查。在每个审查阶段向问题编写者提供反馈有助于支持问题编写能力的发展,而对个别问题表现的分析则可以深入了解最佳问题设计。

相似文献

1
How to write high-quality questions for a high-stakes examination.如何为高风险考试编写高质量问题。
Clin Med (Lond). 2011 Jun;11(3):227-30. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.11-3-227.
2
Single best answer question-writing tips for clinicians.临床医生撰写单项最佳答案问题的技巧。
Postgrad Med J. 2017 Feb;93(1096):76-81. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133893. Epub 2016 Jul 1.
3
A novel student-led approach to multiple-choice question generation and online database creation, with targeted clinician input.一种由学生主导的新颖方法,用于生成多项选择题并创建在线数据库,同时有针对性地征求临床医生的意见。
Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(2):182-8. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2015.1011651.
4
Changes in standard of candidates taking the MRCP(UK) Part 1 examination, 1985 to 2002: analysis of marker questions.1985年至2002年参加英国皇家内科医师学会(MRCP)第一部分考试考生水平的变化:标记问题分析
BMC Med. 2005 Jul 18;3:13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-3-13.
5
Development and implementation of the specialty certificate examinations.专科证书考试的开发与实施。
Clin Med (Lond). 2011 Jun;11(3):235-8. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.11-3-235.
6
Can we share questions? Performance of questions from different question banks in a single medical school.我们可以分享问题吗?同一所医学院中不同题库的问题表现。
Med Teach. 2010;32(6):464-6. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.486056.
7
Dishonesty in the MRCP(UK) Part 1 and Part 2 written examinations: prevention, detection and possible remediation.英国皇家内科医学院(MRCP(UK))第一部分和第二部分笔试中的作弊行为:预防、发现及可能的补救措施。
Clin Med (Lond). 2011 Jun;11(3):239-41. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.11-3-239.
8
Writing clinical scenarios for clinical science questions.为临床科学问题编写临床病例。
Clin Med (Lond). 2016 Apr;16(2):142-5. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-2-142.
9
Augmenting Fellow Education Through Spaced Multiple-Choice Questions.通过间隔多项选择题加强住院医师培训
Mil Med. 2018 Jan 1;183(1-2):e122-e126. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usx020.
10
Comparing single-best-answer and very-short-answer questions for the assessment of applied medical knowledge in 20 UK medical schools: Cross-sectional study.比较 20 所英国医学院应用医学知识评估中的单项最佳答案题和极简短答案题:横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 26;9(9):e032550. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032550.

引用本文的文献

1
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.
2
Respiratory specialty specific examinations in the south west.西南部的呼吸专科特定检查。
Clin Med (Lond). 2012 Dec;12(6):609. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.12-6-609.
3
Assessing prescribing competence.评估处方能力。
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Oct;74(4):632-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.04151.x.