• 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

给药学教师的多项选择题编写指南

How-to-guide for writing multiple choice questions for the pharmacy instructor.

作者信息

Dell Kamila A, Wantuch Gwendolyn A

机构信息

College of Pharmacy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

College of Pharmacy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

出版信息

Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017 Jan-Feb;9(1):137-144. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.036. Epub 2016 Oct 28.

DOI:10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.036
PMID:29180146
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Writing multiple choice questions (MCQ) takes a lot of practice. Often, pharmacy practitioners lack the training to write effective MCQ. Sources for instruction in effective MCQ writing can be overwhelming with numerous suggestions of what should and should not be done.

PURPOSE

The following guide is prepared to serve as a succinct reference for creation and revision of MCQ by both novice and seasoned pharmacy faculty practitioners.

METHODS

The literature is summarized into 12 best practices for writing effective MCQ. Pharmacy specific examples that demonstrate violations of best practices and how they can be corrected are provided.

IMPLICATIONS

The guide can serve as a primer to write new MCQ, as a reference to revise previously created questions, or as a guide to peer review of MCQ.

摘要

背景

编写多项选择题(MCQ)需要大量练习。通常,药学从业者缺乏编写有效多项选择题的培训。关于有效编写多项选择题的指导来源众多,关于应该做什么和不应该做什么的建议让人应接不暇。

目的

编写本指南的目的是为新手和经验丰富的药学教师及从业者创建和修订多项选择题提供简洁的参考。

方法

将文献总结为编写有效多项选择题遵循的12条最佳实践。提供了药学领域的具体示例,展示违反最佳实践的情况以及如何纠正这些情况。

意义

本指南可作为编写新多项选择题的入门指南、修订先前创建问题的参考资料或多项选择题同行评审的指南。

相似文献

1
How-to-guide for writing multiple choice questions for the pharmacy instructor.给药学教师的多项选择题编写指南
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017 Jan-Feb;9(1):137-144. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.036. Epub 2016 Oct 28.
2
Overcoming pitfalls: Results from a mandatory peer review process for written examinations.克服陷阱:笔试强制同行评审过程的结果
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Apr;10(4):423-426. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.12.015. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
3
Will a Short Training Session Improve Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Quality by Dental School Faculty? A Pilot Study.短期培训课程能否提高牙科学院教师编写选择题的质量?一项试点研究。
J Dent Educ. 2017 Aug;81(8):948-955. doi: 10.21815/JDE.017.047.
4
Does Educator Training or Experience Affect the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions?教育工作者的培训或经验会影响多项选择题的质量吗?
Acad Radiol. 2015 Oct;22(10):1317-22. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.06.012. Epub 2015 Aug 12.
5
Writing cognitive educational objectives and multiple-choice test questions.编写认知教育目标和多项选择题
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1998 Nov 15;55(22):2397-401. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/55.22.2397.
6
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.
7
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.
8
Identifying motivators and barriers to student completion of instructor evaluations: A multi-faceted, collaborative approach from four colleges of pharmacy.确定影响学生完成教师评价的激励因素和障碍:来自四所药学院的多方面协作方法。
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017 Jan-Feb;9(1):20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.029. Epub 2016 Oct 26.
9
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.
10
Training Medical Students to Create and Collaboratively Review Multiple-Choice Questions: A Comprehensive Workshop.培训医学生创建和协作审查多项选择题:综合研讨会。
MedEdPORTAL. 2020 Oct 6;16:10986. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10986.

引用本文的文献

1
Improving Summative Assessment Through a Resource-Efficient Faculty Review Process.通过资源高效的教师评审流程改进终结性评估。
Med Sci Educ. 2022 Sep 13;32(5):979-983. doi: 10.1007/s40670-022-01631-9. eCollection 2022 Oct.
2
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.
3
Differences in medical student performance on examinations: exploring score variance between Kolb's Learning Style Inventory classifications.
医学生考试成绩差异:探索柯尔布学习风格量表分类之间的分数差异。
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Nov 11;20(1):423. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02353-5.
4
Development of a New Scoring System To Accurately Estimate Learning Outcome Achievements via Single, Best-Answer, Multiple-Choice Questions for Preclinical Students in a Medical Microbiology Course.开发一种新的评分系统,通过医学微生物学课程中针对临床前学生的单项最佳答案选择题准确评估学习成果。
J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2020 Feb 28;21(1). doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1773. eCollection 2020.