| Course | NR 537 Assessment and Evaluation in Education |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two replies |
| Length | About 580 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Educator |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 537 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Initial Post
The Question I Got Right Knowing Nothing and the One I Got Wrong Knowing Everything: Two Test Items From Nursing School, Read as Evidence That a Flawed Item Measures the Test-Taker's Tricks
The Item I Should Have Missed
I teach the maternal-newborn course in a BSN program, and this week's reading sent me back to two questions from my own nursing school examinations. The first came from a pharmacology final. The stem asked about a drug I had never studied, and I answered correctly because one option was noticeably longer and more qualified than the others, and I had learned that the longest answer is often right. I knew nothing about the drug. The item recorded that I did.
That item measured a test-taking skill, not pharmacology. Guidelines for writing multiple-choice items warn against exactly this kind of cue, including options of unequal length and grammatical clues between stem and answer, because they let students answer without knowing the content (Haladyna et al., 2002).
The Item I Should Have Gotten Right
The second came from my own specialty, years later, on a certification practice test. A stem described a postpartum patient with heavy bleeding and asked for the nurse's best first action. Two options were defensible: massaging the fundus and calling for help. I knew the content thoroughly and knew that in practice I would do both within seconds. I chose one; the key wanted the other. Knowing the subject well made the item harder, because I could see why both answers were right.
When researchers examined high-stakes examinations in a nursing program, close to half the items turned out to be flawed and that flawed items penalized high-achieving students more than borderline ones (Tarrant & Ware, 2008). That matched my experience from both sides: the flawed item rewarded me when I knew nothing and penalized me when I knew a great deal.
The Argument
Taken together, the two items suggest that a flawed test item measures something, just not what it claims to. It measures test-wiseness, or tolerance for ambiguity, or a guess about what the item writer had in mind. For a nursing program, that matters because we use scores to decide who progresses and who is ready for the licensing examination. Every flawed item adds a little noise that has nothing to do with whether a student can care for a mother and newborn safely. I now review my own examinations for these two flaws before I review anything else.
Question for the group: What is one item you remember answering for the wrong reason, and what did it actually measure?
Reply to Priscilla
Priscilla, your memory was of an item that used the word "never," which you eliminated on principle and turned out to be the key. That is the reverse of my longest-answer cue and shows how test-taking rules can backfire. I wonder whether your faculty discussed absolute words in item writing, since students are often taught to distrust them and the item writer may not have known that.
Reply to Kevin
Kevin, you described a question you missed because the stem contained a negative, "which action is not appropriate," that you read past under time pressure. That seems to be a measure of reading speed under stress rather than of the content. Did the item bold or capitalize the negative? If not, it might be worth checking how often your own tests use negative stems.
References
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
Tarrant, M., & Ware, J. (2008). Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments. Medical Education, 42(2), 198-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02957.x
What the NR 537 Week 1 assignment asks for
A first discussion on assessment usually invites you to draw on your own experience of being tested and connect it to the week's reading on measurement. Prompts ask for a specific experience, what it shows about assessment quality and how it bears on your role as an educator. Pick concrete items you remember rather than general feelings about exams. Say what each item actually measured, which may differ from what it claimed to measure. Connect the experience to item-writing principles or research on item flaws. Then state what you will do differently when you write tests. One or two sources in APA 7 are usually expected, and replies should examine a classmate's example rather than simply agree.
How this NR 537 Week 1 example is built
Two memories, prompted by the week's reading, drive the post. The first section describes a pharmacology item answered by choosing the longest option, and links it to guidelines warning against length and grammatical cues. The second describes a certification practice item with two defensible answers, where deep knowledge made the choice harder, and cites a study finding that nearly half of high-stakes nursing items were flawed and that flaws penalized strong students. A third section states the argument and a new habit of reviewing tests for these two flaws first. The replies discuss absolute words as a backfiring test-taking rule and negative stems as a measure of reading under pressure.
NR 537 Week 1 rubric: what full points look like
Points in this discussion usually go to a specific experience, analysis connecting it to assessment principles, evidence from the literature, reflection on the writer's own practice as an educator and replies that add insight. Graders favor posts that name what an item actually measured, since that shows understanding of validity rather than frustration with a test. Linking the example to item-writing guidelines or research on flawed items meets the evidence criterion. A stated change in the writer's own test-writing shows application. Replies earn credit when they identify the flaw in a classmate's remembered item. Correct APA 7 citations, professional tone and posting within the deadlines round out the score.
NR 537 Week 1 help from the desk
A common weakness is a post that complains about unfair tests without analyzing the items. Say what each item measured instead of what it claimed to measure. Another is describing whole exams rather than single items, which leaves nothing precise to analyze. Pick one or two. Students also forget their current role; the discussion is about how you will write tests, not only how you took them. Avoid naming instructors or schools. Keep the post focused on one argument. In replies, avoid sympathy alone. Name the flaw in the classmate's item, such as a negative stem or overlapping options, and suggest how it could have been written. Finally, cite sources that address item quality specifically.
Get a NR 537 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the discussion prompt your section published, along with any objectives or grading notes that came with it, and a custom NR 537 Week 1 example is written to those instructions and returned inside 24-48h. The first one costs nothing. If you would rather work from your own remembered test question, send that too and the post will be built around it.
More NR 537 papers and MSN samples
- NR 537 Week 2: Test Item Set
- NR 537 Week 3: Test Blueprint
- NR 537 Week 4: Analytic Rubric
- NR 537 Week 5: Item Analysis Write-up
- NR 537 Week 6: Clinical Evaluation Tool Critique
- NR 537 Week 7: Course Evaluation Plan
- NR 537 Week 8: Assessment Plan Synthesis
- NR 536 Week 1: Discussion Committing to a Concept
- NR 535 Week 1: Discussion on a Teacher's Decisions
- NR 524 Week 1: Discussion Post on a Program Promise
NR 537 Week 1 questions, answered
Does the post need a real test I actually sat?
It reads better with one, and most sections invite it, but the argument does not depend on the memory being complete. A question reconstructed from a study guide or a practice bank works as long as its wording is stated and an objective can be set above it. What the post cannot survive is an item described only in summary, because the flaw always lives in the exact words.
Is a length usually given for the opening post?
Sections vary, and many publish a range for the first post with a shorter expectation for replies. The example is written to whatever count you send. Where nothing is specified, it runs long enough to hold the item, the objective, the verb comparison, the diagnosis and one repaired stem, which is what the prompt is really asking to see.
Do the replies need to raise a different item?
Not usually. The reply that earns points takes the classmate's own pair and tests whether the objective and the item really diverge, since a fair number of posted examples turn out to be well matched questions that were simply hard. Naming that politely, with the verb evidence attached, is worth more than posting a second story of your own.
Where can I find a free NR 537 Week 1 sample paper?
The two-items post and its replies are printed in full above as the NR 537 Week 1 sample, with nothing to unlock. If a different test memory shapes your view of assessment, tell us about it and we can draft a post on what that item really measured.
What should the NR 537 Week 1 post argue?
A clear claim about assessment drawn from your own experience. The sample argues that flawed items measure test-taking tricks or tolerance for ambiguity rather than knowledge, and supports the claim with guidelines and research.