• 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

A comparison of the difficulty, reliability and validity of complex multiple choice, multiple response and multiple true-false items.

作者信息

Albanese M A, Kent T H, Whitney D R

出版信息

Annu Conf Res Med Educ. 1977;16:105-110.

PMID:606061
Abstract

Complex multiple choice (CMC) items, a type of multiple choice item used extensively in the health sciences, were compared with multiple response (MR) and multiple true-false (MTF) items. The results indicated MTF to be easier, more reliable and more valid than CMC items; therefore, test-makers such as the National Board of Medical Examiners who use CMC items are urged to explore alternatives item formats.

摘要

相似文献

1
A comparison of the difficulty, reliability and validity of complex multiple choice, multiple response and multiple true-false items.
Annu Conf Res Med Educ. 1977;16:105-110.
2
It takes only 100 true-false items to test medical students: true or false?只需100道是非题就能测试医学生:对还是错?
Med Teach. 2005 Aug;27(5):468-72. doi: 10.1080/01421590500097018.
3
Format selection in machine-scored classroom achievement tests.机器评分的课堂成绩测试中的格式选择
J Dent Educ. 1985 Dec;49(12):799-803.
4
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.
5
Validity of multiple-choice examinations in surgery.外科多选题考试的效度
Surgery. 1984 Jul;96(1):97-101.
6
Multiple true-false items: a comparison of scoring algorithms.多项是非题:评分算法比较。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Aug;23(3):455-463. doi: 10.1007/s10459-017-9805-y. Epub 2017 Nov 30.
7
Assessment of medical knowledge: the pros and cons of using true/false multiple choice questions.医学知识评估:使用是非选择题的利弊
Natl Med J India. 2011 Jul-Aug;24(4):225-8.
8
A reappraisal of the use of multiple choice questions.对多项选择题使用情况的重新评估。
Med Teach. 1993;15(2-3):237-42.
9
Item response theory test equating in health sciences education.健康科学教育中的项目反应理论测试等值
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Mar;13(1):3-10. doi: 10.1007/s10459-006-9020-8. Epub 2006 Jul 18.
10
Cuing effect of "all of the above" on the reliability and validity of multiple-choice test items.
Eval Health Prof. 1998 Mar;21(1):120-33. doi: 10.1177/016327879802100106.

引用本文的文献

1
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.