• 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

相似文献

1
Collaborative Examination Item Review Process in a Team-Taught, Self-Care Sequence.团队授课的自我护理课程中的协作式考试项目审查流程
Am J Pharm Educ. 2015 Aug 25;79(6):87. doi: 10.5688/ajpe79687.
2
Design and evaluation of a self-care educational activity as a student learning experience.作为学生学习体验的自我护理教育活动的设计与评估。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2014 Feb 12;78(1):12. doi: 10.5688/ajpe78112.
3
Perception of electronic peer review of SOAP notes among pharmacy students enrolling in their first pharmacotherapeutics course.参加第一门药物治疗学课程的药学专业学生对SOAP病历电子同行评审的认知。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2019 Dec;11(12):1259-1264. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.09.005. Epub 2019 Oct 17.
4
A diabetes self-management education class taught by pharmacy students.药学学生教授的糖尿病自我管理教育课程。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2012 Feb 10;76(1):13. doi: 10.5688/ajpe76113.
5
Best Practices Related to Examination Item Construction and Post-hoc Review.最佳实践与考试项目构建及事后审查相关。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2019 Sep;83(7):7204. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7204.
6
Peer- and self-grading compared to faculty grading.同伴评价和自我评估与教师评价的比较。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2011 Sep 10;75(7):130. doi: 10.5688/ajpe757130.
7
Difficulty and discrimination indices of multiple-choice examination items in a college of pharmacy therapeutics and pathophysiology course sequence.药学院治疗学与病理生理学课程系列中多项选择题考试项目的难度和区分度指标
Int J Pharm Pract. 2014 Feb;22(1):76-83. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12022. Epub 2013 Feb 1.
8
Evaluating the Quality of Examination Items From the Pathophysiology, Drug Action, and Therapeutics Course Series.评估病理生理学、药物作用和治疗学课程系列考试项目的质量。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2024 Aug;88(8):100757. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpe.2024.100757. Epub 2024 Jul 10.
9
Pharmacy students' perceptions toward peer assessment and its use in teaching patient presentation skills.药学专业学生对同伴评估及其在患者表现技能教学中的应用的看法。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2020 Feb;12(2):228-236. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.10.012. Epub 2019 Nov 25.
10
Comparing faculty evaluations of student journal club presentations with student self- and peer evaluations during advanced pharmacy practice experiences.在高级药学实践经验中,比较教师对学生期刊俱乐部报告的评价与学生的自我评价和同伴评价。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2020 May;12(5):564-569. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2020.01.014. Epub 2020 Jan 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Differences in Multiple-Choice Questions of Opposite Stem Orientations Based on a Novel Item Quality Measure.基于新型项目质量度量的正反题干多选题差异。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2023 Mar;87(2):ajpe8934. doi: 10.5688/ajpe8934. Epub 2022 Apr 25.

本文引用的文献

1
Effects of question formats on student and item performance.问题格式对学生和项目表现的影响。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2013 May 13;77(4):71. doi: 10.5688/ajpe77471.
2
Faculty development on item writing substantially improves item quality.开展教师项目写作工作能显著提高试题质量。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Aug;17(3):369-76. doi: 10.1007/s10459-011-9315-2. Epub 2011 Aug 12.
3
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.
4
The quality of in-house medical school examinations.校内医学院考试的质量。
Acad Med. 2002 Feb;77(2):156-61. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200202000-00016.

团队授课的自我护理课程中的协作式考试项目审查流程

Collaborative Examination Item Review Process in a Team-Taught, Self-Care Sequence.

作者信息

Caldwell David J, Sampognaro Laurel, Pate Adam N

机构信息

University of Louisiana at Monroe School of Pharmacy.

出版信息

Am J Pharm Educ. 2015 Aug 25;79(6):87. doi: 10.5688/ajpe79687.

DOI:10.5688/ajpe79687
PMID:26430274
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4584379/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To improve examination item quality by educating and involving course instructors in evidence-based item review and encouraging use of this process in future courses.

METHODS

A peer-review process was implemented in a 2-course sequence (intervention) that involved training and review sessions before each examination and was compared to the previous year's courses (control). Instructors completed a presurvey and postsurvey on training, experience, self-confidence, and self-rated success in multiple-choice item writing. Statistics were calculated for all items in the control and intervention sequences and compared using independent t tests. Items also were classified into levels based on difficulty and discrimination, and distribution into these levels was compared between sequences with independent t tests.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between control and intervention sequence items with regard to mean difficulty (86.3% and 84.4%) or discrimination (0.23- and 0.25), respectively, although item classification distribution did appear to change between the control and intervention sequences' subjective feelings of confidence, and success in item writing increased between presurvey and postsurvey. Confidence in ability to peer-review test items and to implement a formal item evaluation process also increased.

CONCLUSION

Item statistics did not change significantly, but reviewed and edited items distributed more favorably into item statistic-based categories. This method of review positively affected instructors' perceptions of their item-writing confidence and success and improved self-rated opinions of their ability to edit items and train others to do so.

摘要

目的

通过教育课程教师并让其参与基于证据的试题审查,并鼓励在未来课程中使用该流程,以提高考试试题质量。

方法

在一个两课程序列(干预组)中实施同行评审流程,该流程包括在每次考试前进行培训和评审会议,并与上一年的课程(对照组)进行比较。教师完成了关于培训、经验、自信心以及在多项选择题编写方面的自评成功率的预调查和后调查。计算了对照组和干预组序列中所有试题的统计数据,并使用独立t检验进行比较。试题还根据难度和区分度进行了分类,并用独立t检验比较了两组序列中这些类别的分布情况。

结果

对照组和干预组序列的试题在平均难度(分别为86.3%和84.4%)或区分度(分别为0.23和0.25)方面未发现显著差异,尽管对照组和干预组序列之间的试题分类分布似乎有所变化,教师在编写试题方面的自信心和成功率在预调查和后调查之间有所提高。对同行评审试题和实施正式试题评估流程的能力的信心也有所增强。

结论

试题统计数据没有显著变化,但经过评审和编辑的试题在基于试题统计的类别中的分布更有利。这种评审方法对教师对其试题编写信心和成功率的看法产生了积极影响,并提高了他们对编辑试题以及培训他人编辑试题能力的自评。