| Course | NUR 673 Producing and Evaluating Programs for Academic and Practice Settings |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Peer review discussion post and response |
| Length | About 452 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | MS in Nursing |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 673 Module 3
Peer Review: Five Draft Items on Diabetes Management
Strong Stems, Small Flaws: An Evidence-Informed Peer Review of Five Draft Test Items on Diabetes Management
Initial Post: Review of Dana's Draft Items
Dana, thank you for sharing your five items on diabetes management for your first-semester medical-surgical course. Your clinical stems are a real strength: item 1 gives a patient's age, glucose reading, insulin regimen and symptoms, so students must use data rather than recall. Below I note one or two points for each item, with the guideline behind it. Haladyna et al. (2002) summarize these item-writing rules from the research literature, and Tarrant and Ware (2008) found that flawed items in nursing exams lowered the scores of high-achieving students while helping borderline students pass, so the fixes matter for fairness as well as accuracy.
Item 1
Stem: "Which nursing action is not appropriate when a client's glucose reads 52 mg/dL?" The negative is easy to miss. Rewrite it positively: "Which action should the nurse take first?" If a negative is needed, put NOT in capitals and bold.
Item 2
Option D is "All of the above." Students who recognize two correct options can choose D without knowing the third. Replace it with a fourth plausible distractor, or convert the item to select-all-that-apply.
Item 3
The correct option is twice as long and more detailed than the others, a cue that test-wise students use. Shorten it or add similar detail to the distractors.
Item 4
Distractor C, "Administer potassium chloride by IV push," is implausible to any student who has finished the medication safety unit, so the item functions as a three-option item. Replace it with an error students actually make, such as giving rapid-acting insulin with no meal tray in sight.
Item 5
Options A and C are both defensible for a single-best-answer item, since checking the glucose and giving 15 grams of carbohydrate are both correct for a conscious patient with symptoms. Either specify "first" and make one option clearly first, or turn the item into a select-all-that-apply question.
Overall, your items are close. With these changes they will test diabetes management rather than test-taking skill, which is the purpose of the item-writing rules in our text (Oermann et al., 2024).
Response Post: Feedback on My Items
Thank you, Marcus, for reviewing my fluid and electrolyte items. You were right that my sodium item used "always" in a distractor, which students learn to rule out, and that my acid-base case gave the answer away by naming "respiratory" in the stem. I have revised both. Your point that one select-all-that-apply item had five correct options of five was helpful; I added two plausible incorrect options so the item discriminates. I will carry these revisions into my final Part 2 submission.
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
Oermann, M. H., Gaberson, K. B., & De Gagne, J. C. (Eds.). (2024). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (7th ed.). Springer Publishing.
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 NUR 673 Module 3 instructions ask for
Part 4 of the NUR 673 Assessment Portfolio is a peer review carried out across Weeks 3 and 4 and worth 10 points. In Week 3, students post their draft test questions from Part 2 so classmates can review them, and they post an initial review of a peer's questions; the response post is due in Week 4. The syllabus describes the task as reviewing a peer's test questions and providing constructive, evidence-informed feedback. The Week 3 topics, assessing higher-level learning and clinical judgment and preparing students for the Next Generation NCLEX, and the Week 2 material on multiple-choice and multiple-response items give you the standards to apply. Feedback should be specific enough that your classmate can revise each item.
How the NUR 673 Module 3 example is put together
Opening with a genuine strength in the classmate's items, the sample cites the research that frames the review: a synthesis of item-writing guidelines and a study of how flawed items affect nursing students. Each of the five items then receives its own short section that names the flaw, explains why it matters and gives a rewrite or a concrete fix: a negative stem, an all-of-the-above option, a length cue, an implausible distractor and two correct answers. A closing line summarizes the overall quality. The response post, written a week later, thanks the reviewer, accepts two specific criticisms of the writer's own items and states the revisions made. Two margin notes mark the features that make the feedback constructive and the loop closed.
NUR 673 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
The peer review rubric in Canvas awards 10 points across the initial and response posts. Peer reviews are generally credited for feedback that is specific to each item, grounded in item-writing principles and evidence, constructive in tone with revisions offered rather than only problems named, and timely, with both posts on schedule. Reviews lose points when they offer only praise, when they list rules without pointing to the item that breaks them, when they rewrite the content rather than the item construction, or when the response post does not show engagement with feedback received. Because Part 2's final items are due after the peer review, the exchange directly shapes another 25 points of the grade.
NUR 673 Module 3 help from the desk
A common weakness is feedback that says "these look great" or "item 3 could be clearer." Point to the exact flaw and suggest a fix. Another is reviewing clinical content instead of item construction; the assignment is about how the questions are built. Cite the item-writing literature or the course text. Balance strengths and concerns, and keep the tone collegial. In the response post, say what you will change in your own items. Post on time, since classmates need your review before they finalize their questions. If you send the desk your peer's items, it can help you identify the construction issues.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 673 and MS in Nursing sample papers
- NUR 673 Module 1: Paper: Meaningful Assessment and Evaluation in Nursing Education
- NUR 673 Module 2: Assessment Portfolio, Part 1: Test Blueprint
- NUR 673 Module 4: Assessment Portfolio, Part 3: Written Assignment and Rubric
- NUR 673 Module 5: Assessment Portfolio, Part 2: Final Test Questions
- NUR 673 Module 6: Case Study: Course Evaluation
- NUR 673 Module 7: Case Study: Program Evaluation
- NUR 673 Module 8: Paper: Reflection on Learning
- NUR 544 Module 2: Philosophy of Nursing Discussion
- NUR 521 Module 2: Informatics Competencies and Human Factors Discussion
- NUR 593 Module 3: Synthesis Table and Integrative Summary
- NUR 552 Module 6: Critical Reflection Paper: Workplace Application of Ethical Principles
NUR 673 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 673 Module 3 sample paper?
This page holds a full NUR 673 Module 3 sample: an evidence-informed peer review of five draft test items on diabetes management, with a response post.
What are common item-writing flaws in nursing exams?
Negative stems without emphasis, all-of-the-above options, longest-answer cues, implausible distractors, absolute words and more than one correct answer in a single-best-answer item.
Why do item-writing flaws matter?
Research in nursing exams found that flawed items lowered scores for high-achieving students and helped borderline students pass, which weakens fairness and validity.
How is the NUR 673 peer review structured?
Draft items are posted in Week 3 with an initial review of a peer's items; a response post is due in Week 4.
How much is the NUR 673 peer review worth?
The peer review, Part 4 of the portfolio, carries 10 points of the course total.