• 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

Imprecise terms in UK medical multiple-choice questions: what examiners think they mean.

作者信息

Holsgrove G, Elzubeir M

机构信息

Academic Unit of Medical and Dental Education, St Bartholomew's, London, UK.

出版信息

Med Educ. 1998 Jul;32(4):343-50. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00203.x.

DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00203.x
PMID:9743793
Abstract

Many multiple-choice questions (MCQs) used in medical education in the UK contain undefined, imprecise terms. They are particularly common in true/false items and can be found in classroom tests, published examples of MCQs and, more importantly, in high-stakes examinations which determine a candidate's graduation or membership of a professional body. This study investigated imprecise terms used in some MB BS final examinations and the Part 1 Membership Examination of the Royal College of Physicians. It revealed that imprecise terms occur commonly, yet there is a wide range of opinion among the examiners themselves about their meanings. The numbers and variety of imprecise terms which were found in high-stakes MCQ examinations are described in this paper and details are given concerning the lack of consensus about their meanings as reported by the responsible examiners. A second type of construction error--disproportionately large numbers of 'true' branches--was also recorded. Exemplary practices do exist in MCQ quality assurance, but in the UK they are very much the exception rather than the rule. The findings of this investigation strongly indicate a need for change.

摘要

相似文献

1
Imprecise terms in UK medical multiple-choice questions: what examiners think they mean.
Med Educ. 1998 Jul;32(4):343-50. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00203.x.
2
An Enhancement-focused framework for developing high quality single best answer multiple choice questions.一个以提升为重点的框架,用于开发高质量的单项最佳答案选择题。
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2015 Sep-Dec;28(3):194-200. doi: 10.4103/1357-6283.178604.
3
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.
4
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.
5
Medical students create multiple-choice questions for learning in pathology education: a pilot study.医学生在病理学教育中创建多选题进行学习:一项试点研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Aug 22;18(1):201. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1312-1.
6
Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review.提高多项选择题的公平性:文献综述
Med Teach. 2004 Dec;26(8):709-12. doi: 10.1080/01421590400013495.
7
The introduction of single best answer questions as a test of knowledge in the final examination for the fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists in Clinical Oncology.将单项最佳答案问题引入作为皇家放射科医师学院临床肿瘤学研究员资格期末考试的知识测试。
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2008 Oct;20(8):571-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2008.05.010. Epub 2008 Jun 26.
8
Single best answer MCQs: a new format for the FRCR part 2a exam.最佳单项选择题:FRCR 第 2a 部分考试的新形式。
Clin Radiol. 2008 May;63(5):506-10. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.08.021. Epub 2008 Jan 14.
9
Tips for developing a valid and reliable bank of multiple choice questions (MCQs).编制有效且可靠的多项选择题题库的小贴士。
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2012 Sep-Dec;25(3):195-7. doi: 10.4103/1357-6283.109786.
10
Multiple-choice examinations: adopting an evidence-based approach to exam technique.多项选择题考试:采用基于证据的考试技巧方法。
Anaesthesia. 1998 Nov;53(11):1105-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00583.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Absence of item origin bias on a Brazilian interinstitutional Progress Test examination: A pooled analysis of items approach.巴西机构间进阶测试考试中项目来源偏差的缺失:项目汇总分析方法
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 9;20(6):e0325734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325734. eCollection 2025.
2
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.
3
Guidelines for the construction of multiple choice questions tests.
多项选择题测试构建指南。
J Family Community Med. 2006 Sep;13(3):125-33.
4
Frequency vs. intensity: which should be used as anchors for self-report instruments?频率与强度:在自我报告工具中,应该使用哪个作为锚定点?
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Sep 6;10:107. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-107.
5
Evidence of gender bias in True-False-Abstain medical examinations.医学考试中存在的真-假-弃权型试题的性别偏见证据。
BMC Med Educ. 2009 Jun 7;9:32. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-32.