评估许可后环境中多项选择试题的质量。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 NURSING
Hirsh Makhija, Stephen D Schneid, Amy Kalinowski, Jess Mandel, Judy E Davidson
{"title":"评估许可后环境中多项选择试题的质量。","authors":"Hirsh Makhija, Stephen D Schneid, Amy Kalinowski, Jess Mandel, Judy E Davidson","doi":"10.3928/00220124-20240718-03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple-choice test questions are among the main measures of knowledge used by educators in the postlicensure environment; however, these tests are often constructed in the absence of guidelines or the means to evaluate examination quality after administration.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Previously, guidance was provided on constructing quality test items. Here we present instruction for professional development specialists to use postadministration test data for an item analysis, providing insight on test flaws and opportunities for iterative examination improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The topics of item difficulty, index of discrimination, and distractor analysis are covered for independent analysis, and topics such as reliability are addressed for those who have access to a formal program.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three levels of strategies are described: using a learning management system for item analysis, using free open-source software, and using a minimal standards method of evaluating test items. <b>[<i>J Contin Educ Nurs</i>. 2024;55(10):487-492.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":49295,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing","volume":" ","pages":"487-492"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Quality of Multiple-Choice Test Questions in the Postlicensure Environment.\",\"authors\":\"Hirsh Makhija, Stephen D Schneid, Amy Kalinowski, Jess Mandel, Judy E Davidson\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/00220124-20240718-03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple-choice test questions are among the main measures of knowledge used by educators in the postlicensure environment; however, these tests are often constructed in the absence of guidelines or the means to evaluate examination quality after administration.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Previously, guidance was provided on constructing quality test items. Here we present instruction for professional development specialists to use postadministration test data for an item analysis, providing insight on test flaws and opportunities for iterative examination improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The topics of item difficulty, index of discrimination, and distractor analysis are covered for independent analysis, and topics such as reliability are addressed for those who have access to a formal program.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three levels of strategies are described: using a learning management system for item analysis, using free open-source software, and using a minimal standards method of evaluating test items. <b>[<i>J Contin Educ Nurs</i>. 2024;55(10):487-492.]</b>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"487-492\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20240718-03\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20240718-03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多项选择测试题是教育工作者在考后环境中用来衡量知识水平的主要方法之一;然而,这些测试通常是在缺乏指导或缺乏在实施后评估考试质量的方法的情况下构建的:方法:以前,我们曾就如何构建高质量的测试项目提供过指导。在此,我们将指导专业发展专家使用实施后的测试数据进行项目分析,以深入了解测试的缺陷和迭代改进考试的机会:结果:对于独立分析,我们介绍了题目难度、区分度指数和干扰项分析等主题;对于有机会参加正式项目的人员,我们介绍了信度等主题:结论:介绍了三个层次的策略:使用学习管理系统进行项目分析、使用免费开源软件和使用最低标准方法评估测试项目。[202x;5x(x):xx-xx.].
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the Quality of Multiple-Choice Test Questions in the Postlicensure Environment.

Background: Multiple-choice test questions are among the main measures of knowledge used by educators in the postlicensure environment; however, these tests are often constructed in the absence of guidelines or the means to evaluate examination quality after administration.

Method: Previously, guidance was provided on constructing quality test items. Here we present instruction for professional development specialists to use postadministration test data for an item analysis, providing insight on test flaws and opportunities for iterative examination improvement.

Results: The topics of item difficulty, index of discrimination, and distractor analysis are covered for independent analysis, and topics such as reliability are addressed for those who have access to a formal program.

Conclusion: Three levels of strategies are described: using a learning management system for item analysis, using free open-source software, and using a minimal standards method of evaluating test items. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2024;55(10):487-492.].

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
107
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing is a monthly peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles on continuing nursing education that are directed toward continuing education and staff development professionals, nurse administrators, and nurse educators in all health care settings, for over 50 years.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信