Item Analysis for a Better Quality Test

N. Hartati, Hendro Pratama Supra Yogi
{"title":"Item Analysis for a Better Quality Test","authors":"N. Hartati, Hendro Pratama Supra Yogi","doi":"10.24853/ELIF.2.1.59-70","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study is a small-scale study of item analysis of a teacher’s own-made summative test. It examines the quality of multiple-choice items in terms of the difficulty level, the discriminating power, and the effectiveness of distractors. The study employed a qualitative approach which also used a simple quantitative analysis to analyze the quality of the test items through the document analysis of the teacher’s English summative test and the students’ answer sheets.  The result shows that the summative test has more easy items than difficult items with the ratio of 19:25:6 while they should be 1:2:1 for easy, medium, and difficult.  In terms of the Discriminating Power, there are 3, 13, and 16 for excellent, Good, and satisfactory level, but there are 17 and 2 for poor and bad levels of Discriminating Power.  There are 43 (21.5%) of all distractors which are dysfunctional which, in turns, makes the items too easy which also makes the items fail to discriminate the upper-group students from the lower ones. Therefore, the 43 dysfunctional distractors should be revised to alter the difficulty level and improve the discriminating power.  This research is expected to serve as a reflective means for teachers to examine their own-made test to ensure the quality of their test items.","PeriodicalId":122895,"journal":{"name":"English Language in Focus (ELIF)","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Language in Focus (ELIF)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24853/ELIF.2.1.59-70","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

This study is a small-scale study of item analysis of a teacher’s own-made summative test. It examines the quality of multiple-choice items in terms of the difficulty level, the discriminating power, and the effectiveness of distractors. The study employed a qualitative approach which also used a simple quantitative analysis to analyze the quality of the test items through the document analysis of the teacher’s English summative test and the students’ answer sheets.  The result shows that the summative test has more easy items than difficult items with the ratio of 19:25:6 while they should be 1:2:1 for easy, medium, and difficult.  In terms of the Discriminating Power, there are 3, 13, and 16 for excellent, Good, and satisfactory level, but there are 17 and 2 for poor and bad levels of Discriminating Power.  There are 43 (21.5%) of all distractors which are dysfunctional which, in turns, makes the items too easy which also makes the items fail to discriminate the upper-group students from the lower ones. Therefore, the 43 dysfunctional distractors should be revised to alter the difficulty level and improve the discriminating power.  This research is expected to serve as a reflective means for teachers to examine their own-made test to ensure the quality of their test items.
项目分析为更好的质量测试
本研究是对教师自编总结性测验进行项目分析的小规模研究。它从难度、辨别能力和干扰因素的有效性等方面考察了多项选择题的质量。本研究采用定性分析的方法,同时也采用简单的定量分析,通过对教师英语总结性测试和学生答题卡的文献分析,对测试项目的质量进行分析。结果表明:总结性测验中易题多于难题,其比例为19:25:6,而易、中、难题的比例应为1:2:1。在辨别能力方面,优秀、良好和满意的水平有3分、13分和16分,而辨别能力差和差的水平有17分和2分。干扰因素中有43个(21.5%)是功能失调的,这反过来又使项目过于简单,也使项目无法区分高年级和低年级学生。因此,需要对43个功能障碍干扰因素进行修改,改变难度,提高辨别能力。本研究希望能成为教师检视自编测验的一种反思手段,以确保试题的品质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信