EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 23 / Numéro 1 (2022) Pédagogie Médicale, 23 1 (2022) 85-92 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 23, Number 1, 2022
Page(s) 85 - 92
Section Concepts et Innovations
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2021030
Published online 11 mai 2022
  1. Jouquan J. L’évaluation des apprentissages des étudiants en formation médicale initiale. Pédagogie Médicale 2002;3:38‐52. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fontaine S, Loye N. L’évaluation des apprentissages : une démarche rigoureuse. Pédagogie Médicale 2018;18:189‐98. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brousseau G. L’échec et le contrat. Recherches 1980;41:177‐82. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baruk S. L’âge du capitaine : de l’erreur en mathématiques. Paris : Éditions du Seuil, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  5. Laird-Fick H, Solomon D, Parker C, Wang L. Attendance, engagement and performance in a medical school curriculum: Early findings from competency-based progress testing in a new medical school curriculum. Peer J 2018;6:e5283. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5283. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fjortoft N. Students’ motivations for class attendance. Am J Pharm Educ 2005;69:107‐12. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kanter LS. To be there or not to be there: Is attendance really the question? Acad Med 2012;87:679. [Google Scholar]
  8. Marzuk MP. More about medical students’ attendance at lectures. Acad Med 2013;88:149. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Venturini P, Tiberghien A. Analyse et formalisation de la dimension durable du contrat didactique. Éducation et didactique 2018;12:65‐106. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Astolfi J-P., Darot É, Ginsburger-Vogel Y, Toussaint J. Mots-clés de la didactique des sciences. Repère, définitions, bibliographies. Louvain-la-Neuve : De Boeck Supérieur, 2008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Perrenoud P. Vers une sociologie de l’évaluation. Bulletin de l’Association des enseignants et chercheurs en éducation 1989;6:19‐31. [Google Scholar]
  12. Perrenoud P. Touche pas à mon évaluation ! Pour une approche systémique du changement pédagogique. Mesure et évaluation en éducation 1993;16:107‐32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Thorndike RL. Tests as research instruments. Rev Educ Res 1951;21:450‐62. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cronbach LJ. Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educ Psychol Measure 1950;10:3‐31. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Attali Y, Bar-Hillel M. Guess where: The position of correct answers in multiple-choice test items as a psychometric variable. J Educ Measure 2003;40:109‐28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tellinghuisen J, Sulikowski MM. Does the answer order matter on multiple-choice exams? J Chem Educ 2008;85:572‐5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shaw JI, Bergen JE, Brown CA, Gallagher ME. Centrality preferences in choices among similar options. J General Psychol 2000;127:157‐64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Carnegie JA. Does correct answer distribution influence student choices when writing multiple choice examinations? Can J Scholar Teach Learn 2017;8:Article 11. [Google Scholar]
  19. Haladyna TM, Downing SM. A Taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl Measure Educ 1989;2:37‐50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Abdalla ME. Multiple choice questions revisited: Improvement of validity for fair tests. Gezira J Health Sci 2013;9:27‐36. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pate A, Caldwell DJ. Effects of multiple-choice item-writing guideline utilization on item and student performance. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 2014;6:130‐4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hauck KB, Mingo MA, Williams RL. A review of relationships between item sequence and performance on multiple-choice exams. Scholar Teach Learn Psychol 2017;3:58‐75. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ellsworth RA, Dunnell P, Duell OK. Multiple-choice test items: What are textbook authors telling teachers? J Educ Res 1990;83:289‐93. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.