e.g. mhealth
Search Results (1 to 6 of 6 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 3 JMIR Medical Education
- 1 JMIR Formative Research
- 1 JMIR Research Protocols
- 1 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Human Factors
- 0 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 0 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 0 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 0 JMIR Serious Games
- 0 JMIR Mental Health
- 0 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 0 JMIR Cancer
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Diabetes
- 0 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 JMIR Cardio
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIR Dermatology
- 0 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 0 JMIR Aging
- 0 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 0 JMIR Nursing
- 0 JMIRx Med
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 JMIR Infodemiology
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR AI
- 0 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 0 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 0 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)

Assessing ChatGPT’s Capability for Multiple Choice Questions Using RaschOnline: Observational Study
scoring
JMIR Form Res 2024;8:e46800
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS

While dichotomous scoring (ie, 1 full credit point is awarded if examinees mark the correct answer option or statements, otherwise no credit is awarded) is most commonly proposed for single-choice items [7], scoring methods for multiple-select items are more heterogeneous: Besides dichotomous scoring, further scoring methods resulting in (intermediate) partial credit or even negative points (ie, malus points) have been described [8,9].
JMIR Med Educ 2024;10:e58126
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section

Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is (1) to map an overview of different scoring methods for individual single-choice items described in the literature, (2) to compare different scoring methods based on the metric expected chance score, and (3) to analyze the relation between examinees’ true knowledge and expected scoring results (averaged percentage score).
JMIR Med Educ 2023;9:e44084
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS

The null hypotheses were as follows: (1) scoring results for Pick-N and MTF items do not differ between different scoring methods and (2) item characteristics do not impact scoring results.
Examples of matched Pick-N (top) and Multiple-True-False (bottom) items with 5 answer options/statements.
JMIR Med Educ 2023;9:e43792
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS

Many standards and scoring methods already exist, and the first international recommendations for remote monitoring in oncology are now available [6].
A recent review of relevant medical literature analyzed the quality criteria for evaluating health solutions. Other criteria were then provided by the French National Health Authority (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS), which is also responsible for the evaluation of drugs and medical devices [7,8].
J Med Internet Res 2022;24(7):e39590
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS