Item analysis

ITEM ANALYSIS
ASSESSMENT IN TESOL

Members of Group
• Edi Julianto A • Novika Rosalinda
R
• Herlyna R
Hutapea
• Reny K Manik
• SN. 1705086021 • SN. 1705086017 • SN. 1705086016 • SN. 1705086015

SPECIFICATIONS
What is the Purpose of Test?
To measure students’ achievement on reading
comprehension which refers to the curriculum
and syllabus used for tenth grade of senior high
school.

What is particular aspect of language
ability that is being tested?
Base Competencies:
3.4 Differentiating the social function, text structure,
and language features of some short and simple oral or
written descriptive texts by giving and asking information
about tourism objects and famous historical buildings
based on the use contexts.
4.4 Getting the meanings contextually in relation to
the social function, text structure, and language features
of some short and simple oral or written descriptive texts
by giving and asking information about tourism objects
and famous historical buildings.

Place Setting: SMA Negeri 4 on April 15, 2019
Participants: 30 Tenth grade students of X
Social 3

Time allotment : 90 minutes
Scoring method : each correct answer was 2

THE CONSTRUCTED TEST
Process of the development:
Planning,
Determining
Creating the test

Test was based on???
• Lesson plan,
• Syllabus and
• other sources that are coherent each other

Skills and item Table
No. Skills Item Numbers
1. To find main idea/ general idea 6, 8, 18, 22, 27, 30 34, 35, 41, 46
2. To find specific information 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 31, 39, 48
3. To find explicit information 1, 5, 7, 37, 40, 45
4. To find implicit information 3, 17, 19, 20, 28, 33, 43
5.
To get word meaning of from context
(vocabularies/ terms related to tourism objects
and famous historical buildings)
21, 36, 49
6. To find the synonym of words 4, 14, 16, 29, 38
7. To find out the meaning of sentences 15, 42
8. To find the word reference 44
9. To identify the communicative purpose 10, 26, 32
10. To select the correct adverbs of degree 50
11.
To find the correct declarative and interrogative
sentences
47

SCORING
Definition:
A summary of the evidence contained in an
examinee's responses to the items of a test that
are related to the construct or constructs being
measured.

Scoring
Total item : 50
Final Score : Correct answer(s) X 2
Example:
John has 30 correct answers
So, 30 X 2 = 60
Final Score is 60

Test Result
No Nama Raw Score Final Score
1 Alya Febriani. R 44 88
2 M. Shidiq Ghani 42 84
3 Laila Shofina 41 82
4 Meryam Nur Aulia 41 82
5 Siti Nur Aisyah 41 82
6 Wisnu Haryanto 41 82
7 Prianda Mahardika P 40 80
8 Radika Nur Aisah 40 80
9 Astri Wulan Dari 39 78
10 Deny Ferdian. M 39 78
11 Feby 39 78
12 Fina Aulia 39 78
13 M. Fiqriansyah 39 78
14 Jastin Effelin. P 39 78
15 Nur As-Syifa 39 78
16 Dewi Aulia 38 76
17 Devianti Rahman 38 76
18 Indah Nur Khotimah 38 76
19 M. Arif Maulana 38 76
20 Naia Septriasa 38 76
21 M. Taufikur Rahman 37 74
22 Dinda Permatasari 37 74
23 Teguh Cahyadi 37 74
24 M. Lathif 34 68
25 Bagus Krismana 30 60
26 M. Raihan 29 58
27 Afri Ridzieq 28 56
28 Andi Gunawan 27 54
29 M. Rifaldi 26 52
30 Haikal Izhar A 26 42

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
No Raw Score Final Score Tally Frequency Percentage
1 44 88 I 1 3.3
2 42 84 I 1 3.3
3 41 82 IIII 4 13.3
4 40 80 II 2 6.7
5 39 78 IIII III 7 23.3
6 38 76 IIII I 5 16.7
7 37 74 III 3 10
8 34 68 I 1 3.3
9 30 60 I 1 3.3
10 29 58 I 1 3.3
11 28 56 I 1 3.3
12 27 54 I 1 3.3
13 26 52 II 2 6.7
Total 30 30 100
Frequency distribution that explains the number of correct answers for each student, and
the final value.
88 is the highest score
the lowest score is 52.

MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY
Mode
Mode is 78 as there are seven students who got
raw score 39 which means they got final score
78.
Median
Median in this data is 76.

• Mean
N X f Xf
1 88 1 88
2 84 1 84
3 82 4 328
4 80 2 160
5 78 7 546
6 76 5 380
7 74 3 222
8 68 1 68
9 60 1 60
10 58 1 58
11 56 1 56
12 54 1 54
13 52 2 52
Total 910 30 2156
x =
𝑓𝑥
𝑁
=
2156
30
= 71.8
the mean of the total student score divided by 30 students, then found 71.8 is the result.

STANDARD DEVIATION
No x d d2
1 88 16.2
262.44
2 84 12.2
148.84
3 82 10.2
104.04
4 82 10.2
104.04
5 82 10.2
104.04
6 82 10.2
104.04
7 80 8.2
67.24
8 80 8.2
67.24
9 78 6.2
38.44
10 78 6.2
38.44
11 78 6.2
38.44
12 78 6.2
38.44
13 78 6.2
38.44
14 78 6.2
38.44
15 78 6.2
38.44
16 76 4.2
17.64
17 76 4.2
17.64
18 76 4.2
17.64
19 76 4.2
17.64
20 76 4.2
17.64
21 74 2.2
4.84
22 74 2.2
4.84
23 74 2.3
4.84
24 68 -3.8
14.44
25 60 -11.8
139.24
26 58 -13.8
190.44
27 56 -15.8
249.64
28 54 -17.8
316.84
29 52 -19.8
392.04
30 42 -29.9
888.04
Total 2198 0.000 3524.4
X = 2198
N = 30
Σd2 = 3524.4
𝑑²
𝑁
= 117.48
s.d = 10.92272
A standard deviation of 10.92
shows a higher spread of
scores

RELIABILITY
No Nama X Y XY X^2 Y^2
1 AlyaFebrianiRahman 20 24 480 400 576
2 M. ShidiqGhani 19 23 437 361 529
3 LailaShofina 19 22 418 361 484
4 MeryamNurAulia 19 22 418 361 484
5 SitiNurAisyah 19 22 418 361 484
6 WisnuHaryanto 19 22 418 361 484
7 PriandaMahardika Putra 19 21 399 361 441
8 RadikaNurAisah 19 21 399 361 441
9 AstriWulan Dari 19 20 380 361 400
10 Deny FerdianMaldini 19 20 380 361 400
11 DeviantiRahman 18 20 360 324 400
12 DewiAulia 18 20 360 324 400
13 Feby 19 20 380 361 400
14 FinaAulia 19 20 380 361 400
15 Indah NurKhotimah 18 20 360 324 400
16 JastinEffelinPalungan 19 20 380 361 400
17 M. ArifMaulana 18 20 360 324 400
18 M. Fiqriansyah 19 20 380 361 400
19 NaiaSeptriasa 18 20 360 324 400
20 Nur As-Syifa 19 20 380 361 400
21 DindaPermatasari 18 19 342 324 361
22 M. TaufikurRahman 18 19 342 324 361
23 TeguhCahyadi 18 19 342 324 361
24 M. Lathif 18 16 288 324 256
25 BagusKrismana 15 15 225 225 225
26 M. Raihan 14 15 210 196 225
27 AfriRidzieq 14 14 196 196 196
28 AndiGunawan 13 14 182 169 196
29 HaikalIzharAnnazhari 13 13 169 169 169
30 M. Rifaldi 13 13 169 169 169
TOTAL 530 574 10312 9494 11242
r11 =
2
𝑟𝑥𝑦
1
+𝑟𝑥𝑦
r11 =
2𝑥0
.
930504916
1
+
0
.
930504916
r11 =
0.9640016022
the reliability of the test falls
to very high correlation
(0.9640016022).

VALIDITY
No Nama X Y XY X^2 Y^2
1 Alya Febriani Rahman 88 80 7040 7744 6400
2 Feby 78 80 6240 6084 6400
3 M. Shidiq Ghani 84 80 6720 7056 6400
4 Devianti Rahman 76 78 5928 5776 6084
5 Dewi Aulia 76 78 5928 5776 6084
6 Dinda Permatasari 74 78 5772 5476 6084
7 Fina Aulia 78 78 6084 6084 6084
8 Meryam Nur Aulia 82 78 6396 6724 6084
9 Siti Nur Aisyah 82 78 6396 6724 6084
10 Laila Shofina 82 76 6232 6724 5776
11 Prianda Mahardika Putra 80 76 6080 6400 5776
12 Radika NurAisah 80 76 6080 6400 5776
13 Wisnu Haryanto 82 76 6232 6724 5776
14 Deny Ferdian Maldini 78 74 5772 6084 5476
15 Jastin Effelin Palungan 78 74 5772 6084 5476
16 M. Arif Maulana 76 74 5624 5776 5476
17 M. Fiqriansyah 78 74 5772 6084 5476
18 Nur As-Syifa 78 74 5772 6084 5476
19 Bagus Krismana 60 72 4320 3600 5184
20 M. Lathif 68 72 4896 4624 5184
21 M. TaufikurRahman 74 72 5328 5476 5184
22 Teguh Cahyadi 74 72 5328 5476 5184
23 Indah NurKhotimah 76 70 5320 5776 4900
24 Naia Septriasa 76 70 5320 5776 4900
25 Astri Wulan Dari 78 68 5304 6084 4624
26 Haikal Izhar Annazhari 42 64 2688 1764 4096
27 M. Rifaldi 52 62 3224 2704 3844
28 M. Raihan 58 50 2900 3364 2500
29 Afri Ridzieq 56 48 2688 3136 2304
30 Andi Gunawan 54 44 2376 2916 1936
TOTAL 2198 2146 159532 164500 156028

VALIDITY
rxy =
=
30.159532 − 2198.2146
((30.164500− 2198 )2 ((30.156028−(2146))2
= 0.779908155
Thit= 𝑟𝑥𝑦 𝑛
−
2
1
−
𝑟𝑥𝑦
2
=
0
.
779908155
30
−
2
1
−0
.
7799081552
= 6.5935822498
The t-table of the validity is 6.5935822498, It is valid because tcomputed ≥ t-table

DIFFICULTY LEVEL
Criteria used to determine the level of difficulty is: Criteria :
0. 7 < p  1.00 → easy
0.3  p  7 → moderate
0  p  0.3 → difficult
Below are the examples of the computation of difficulty level:
Item number 1: FV =
30
30
= FV = 1(Easy)
Item number 18:FV =
2
30
= FV = 0.066666 (Difficult) The
following table shows the computation of difficulty level in
excel program.

DIFFICULTY LEVEL
Below are the examples
of the computation of
difficulty level:
Item number 1: FV
=
30
30
= FV =
1(Easy)
Item number 18:FV
=
2
30
= FV =
0.066666 (Difficult)
THE ANALYSIS OF DIFFICULTY LEVEL
NO. N R FV Category
1 30 30 1 Easy
2 30 30 1 Easy
3 27 30 0.900000 Easy
4 28 30 0.933333 Easy
5 30 30 1 Easy
6 30 30 1 Easy
7 0 30 0 Difficult
8 30 30 1 Easy
9 30 30 1 Easy
10 24 30 0.800000 Easy
11 24 30 0.800000 Easy
12 20 30 0.666666 Moderate
13 24 30 0.800000 Easy
14 23 30 0.766666 Easy
15 15 30 0.500000 Moderate
16 0 30 0 Difficult
17 24 30 0.800000 Easy
18 2 30 0.066666 Difficult
19 30 30 1 Easy
20 30 30 1 Easy
21 0 30 0 Difficult
22 30 30 1 Easy
23 30 30 1 Easy
24 30 30 1 Easy
25 30 30 1 Easy
26 30 30 1 Easy
27 24 30 0.800000 Easy
28 6 30 0.200000 Difficult
29 1 30 0.030000 Difficult
30 30 30 1 Easy
31 30 30 1 Easy
32 24 30 24 Easy
33 1 30 1 Difficult
34 30 30 30 Easy
35 30 30 30 Easy
36 25 30 0.833333 Easy
37 0 30 0 Difficult
38 8 30 0.266666 Difficult
39 30 30 1 Easy
40 1 30 0.033333 Easy
41 30 30 1 Easy
42 23 30 0.766666 Easy
43 30 30 1 Easy
44 30 30 1 Easy
45 30 30 1 Easy
46 30 30 1 Easy
47 0 30 0 Difficult
48 30 30 1 Easy
49 30 30 1 Easy
50 30 30 1 Easy

DISCRIMINATION POWER
THE ANALYSIS OF DISCRIMINATION POWER
No. Ba Ta Bb Tb D = Pa - Pb Category
1 15 15 15 15 0 discarded/substituted
3 15 15 12 15 0.2 discarded/substituted
10 15 15 9 15 0.4 satisfactory (needs revision)
12 15 15 5 15 0.66 accepted (good)
14 15 15 8 15 0.46 accepted (good)
15 15 15 0 15 1 accepted (excellent)
28 6 15 15 15 -0.6 discarded/substituted
33 0 15 1 15 -0.06 discarded/substituted
38 8 15 0 15 0.53 accepted (good)
42 15 15 8 15 0.46 accepted (good)
Criteria of Discrimination Power :
 D 0.20 = poor (discarded)
 020  D 0.40 = satisfactory
(need revision)
 0.40 D 0.70 = good (accepted)
 D> 0.70 = excellent (accepted)
If D is negative, it is better not to use
them Below are the examples of
the item discrimination power’s
calculation: Item number 1 D =
𝐵𝑎
𝑇𝑎
-
𝐵𝑏
𝑇𝑏
=
15
15
-
15
15
= 0 (discarded) Item
number 15D =
𝐵𝑎
𝑇𝑎
-
𝐵𝑏
𝑇𝑏
=
15
15
-
0
15
= 1
(excellent)

DISTRACTOR POWER
No group/option A B* C D E omit Total
1 upper group 0 15 0 0 0 15
lower group 0 15 0 0 0 15
Total 0 30 0 0 0 30
 Item number 1 has ineffective distractors as option A, C, D,E were not
chosen by the test takers. The omit is good as there is no test takers left the
answer blank
 Item number 7 has effective distractors as all options were chosen by the
test takers. In addition, it also has good omit since all students chose the
options.
No group/option A B C* D E omit Total
7 upper group 6 1 1 0 7 0 15
lower group 9 0 1 1 4 0 15
Total 15 1 2 1 11 0 30
1
7

CONCLUSION
The highest score is 88, the lowest is 42
The mode is 78
The median score is 76
The mean score is 71,8
 The reliability of the test is 0.9640016022 (very
high correlation)
The t-table of the validity is 6.5935822498
 Validity of each item:14 items valid, 4 items
invalid, 32 items does not belong to the criteria

Difficulty level :38 items Easy, 14 items Moderate
and 10 items difficult
Discriminate power: 1 item which has its function to
discriminate students excellently, 4 items which has its
function to discriminate students who can do well and
students who do badly (accepted), 7 items fall into
satisfactory but need to be revised and 38 items are
discarded as they cannot differentiate between
students who have high ability and low ability.
Distractor power: 4 items which has effective
distractors, 46 items have ineffective distractors which
need to be reconstructed.

Based on the information above, it can be
concluded that the reading comprehension on
Descriptive text owned some weak points
therefore the test developer should manage to do
revision and reconstruction of the questions,
options, and distracters.

Item analysis

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (15)

Ähnlich wie Item analysis

Ähnlich wie Item analysis (20)

Mehr von Aprilianty Wid

Mehr von Aprilianty Wid (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Item analysis