使用各种方法进行标准化科学科目测试:哪个最有利可图?

M. Am, H. Retnawati
{"title":"使用各种方法进行标准化科学科目测试:哪个最有利可图?","authors":"M. Am, H. Retnawati","doi":"10.21043/thabiea.v6i1.19503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A good test set can be reflected in the quality of the items. It can measure the ability of the test takers reasonably even though they are distributed in several question packages. This study uses an exploratory, descriptive method to determine the equivalence of standardized test sets in science subjects for junior high schools in Indonesia. The data were obtained from the database of Junior High School National Examination results in the subject of Natural Sciences, which consisted of 5 question packages with 40 items/package. The equating technique uses the Item Response Theory 3 PL approach with the help of R Studio Software. The research results show that the national exam questions, which consist of 5 question packages, have a good level of item difficulty and all guesses. However, the discrimination index and several items obtained unfavorable results. In addition to the results of equating the graphical method using the closeness of the test characteristic curve, the Stocking & Lord methods produce the most equivalent scores. These findings can be a reference for test developers or researchers in the field of measurement to produce better and more accurate test kits.","PeriodicalId":308683,"journal":{"name":"THABIEA : JOURNAL OF NATURAL SCIENCE TEACHING","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equating of standardized science subjects tests using various methods: which is the most profitable?\",\"authors\":\"M. Am, H. Retnawati\",\"doi\":\"10.21043/thabiea.v6i1.19503\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A good test set can be reflected in the quality of the items. It can measure the ability of the test takers reasonably even though they are distributed in several question packages. This study uses an exploratory, descriptive method to determine the equivalence of standardized test sets in science subjects for junior high schools in Indonesia. The data were obtained from the database of Junior High School National Examination results in the subject of Natural Sciences, which consisted of 5 question packages with 40 items/package. The equating technique uses the Item Response Theory 3 PL approach with the help of R Studio Software. The research results show that the national exam questions, which consist of 5 question packages, have a good level of item difficulty and all guesses. However, the discrimination index and several items obtained unfavorable results. In addition to the results of equating the graphical method using the closeness of the test characteristic curve, the Stocking & Lord methods produce the most equivalent scores. These findings can be a reference for test developers or researchers in the field of measurement to produce better and more accurate test kits.\",\"PeriodicalId\":308683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THABIEA : JOURNAL OF NATURAL SCIENCE TEACHING\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THABIEA : JOURNAL OF NATURAL SCIENCE TEACHING\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21043/thabiea.v6i1.19503\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THABIEA : JOURNAL OF NATURAL SCIENCE TEACHING","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21043/thabiea.v6i1.19503","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一个好的测试集可以体现在项目的质量上。它可以合理地衡量考生的能力,即使他们分布在几个问题包中。本研究采用一种探索性、描述性的方法来确定印度尼西亚初中科学科目标准化测试集的等效性。数据来源于初中国家考试自然科学科目成绩数据库,共5道题包,40题/题包。等式技术在R Studio软件的帮助下使用项目反应理论3pl方法。研究结果表明,国家考试试题由5个题包组成,具有较好的题目难度和全猜题水平。然而,辨别指数和几个项目取得了不利的结果。除了利用测试特征曲线的接近度使图形方法相等的结果外,Stocking & Lord方法产生的分数最相等。这些发现可以为测试开发人员或测量领域的研究人员提供参考,以生产更好,更准确的测试套件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Equating of standardized science subjects tests using various methods: which is the most profitable?
A good test set can be reflected in the quality of the items. It can measure the ability of the test takers reasonably even though they are distributed in several question packages. This study uses an exploratory, descriptive method to determine the equivalence of standardized test sets in science subjects for junior high schools in Indonesia. The data were obtained from the database of Junior High School National Examination results in the subject of Natural Sciences, which consisted of 5 question packages with 40 items/package. The equating technique uses the Item Response Theory 3 PL approach with the help of R Studio Software. The research results show that the national exam questions, which consist of 5 question packages, have a good level of item difficulty and all guesses. However, the discrimination index and several items obtained unfavorable results. In addition to the results of equating the graphical method using the closeness of the test characteristic curve, the Stocking & Lord methods produce the most equivalent scores. These findings can be a reference for test developers or researchers in the field of measurement to produce better and more accurate test kits.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信