Item Analysis Worksheet: Ten Students Have Taken An Objectiv

Item Analysis WorksheetTen Students Have Taken An Objective Assessment

Item Analysis WorksheetTen students have taken an objective assessment. The quiz contained 10 questions. In the table below, the students’ scores have been listed from high to low (David, Tommy, Dennis, Sara, and Johnny are in the upper half). There are five (5) students in the upper half and five students (5) in the lower half. The number “1” indicates a correct answer on the question, a “0” indicates an incorrect answer.

Student Name Total Score (%) Questions David Tommy Dennis Sara Johnny Tammy Grace Mary Darrell Jeanette Calculate the Difficulty Index (p) and the Discrimination Index (D) for each question. Item #Correct (Upper Group) # Correct (Lower Group) Difficulty (p) Discrimination (D) Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Answer the following questions: 1. Which question was the easiest? 2. Which question was the most difficult? 3. Which item has the poorest discrimination? 4. Which questions would you eliminate first (if any) – Why?

Paper For Above instruction

Item analysis plays a crucial role in evaluating the effectiveness of an assessment tool, particularly in educational settings where understanding student performance and question quality can guide instructional improvements. In this context, an item analysis worksheet was conducted based on the results of ten students who completed a 10-question objective assessment. This analysis focused on two primary metrics: the Difficulty Index (p) and the Discrimination Index (D), which inform educators about the relative difficulty of each question and how well each question differentiates between high- and low-performing students, respectively.

Understanding the Difficulty Index (p)

The Difficulty Index (p) is calculated by dividing the number of students who answered the question correctly by the total number of students. A higher p-value indicates an easier question, as more students answered correctly, whereas a lower p-value indicates a more difficult question. Based on conventional benchmarks, questions with a p-value above 0.75 are considered easy, those with a p-value between 0.25 and 0.75 are considered moderate, and those below 0.25 are difficult (Haladyna & Downing, 1993). For this assessment, the difficulty of each question was computed to identify which questions were too easy or too difficult, providing insight into the test’s overall balance.

Understanding the Discrimination Index (D)

The Discrimination Index (D) measures how effectively a question distinguishes between high- and low-performing students. It is calculated by subtracting the proportion of low scorers who answered the question correctly from the proportion of high scorers who answered correctly, then dividing by the number of students in each group (Haladyna & Downing, 1993). A positive D suggests that high performers are more likely to answer the item correctly, which indicates good discrimination. Conversely, a negative D indicates that low performers are more likely to answer correctly, signifying poor discrimination and potential misalignment of the question with the intended learning outcomes.

Conducting the Analysis

To analyze each question, students are first arranged by their total scores from highest to lowest. The upper group comprises the top half of students, and the lower group comprises the bottom half. For each question, the number of students in each group who answered correctly is tallied. These figures facilitate the calculation of the difficulty and discrimination indices. For example, if 4 out of 5 students in the upper group answered a question correctly, the difficulty index for that question would be 0.80, indicating an easy question. If 4 out of 5 students in the lower group answered correctly, then the discrimination index would be zero, reflecting no discrimination between groups.

Interpreting the Results

Using the calculations, the questions can be categorized based on their ease and discriminatory power. For instance, a question with a high ease level (p > 0.75) and low discrimination (D near zero or negative) might be overly simplistic and could be eliminated or revised to enhance the assessment’s effectiveness. Conversely, questions with moderate difficulty and high discrimination are valuable, as they efficiently differentiate students who have mastered the content from those who have not. Questions with negative discrimination indices are particularly problematic, as they may confuse students or assess unintended skills, and should be critically reviewed for potential elimination or revision.

Implications for Test Development

Conducting item analysis informs educators not only about individual question quality but also about the overall balance of the assessment. Questions that are too easy or too difficult can alter the validity of test scores, and questions that do not discriminate can undermine the assessment’s ability to identify students’ actual understanding. Furthermore, analyzing the cognitive level of questions, such as according to Bloom’s taxonomy, can guide adjustments to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of higher-order thinking skills. Teachers can use this data to revise or replace problematic items and to develop assessments that are fair, reliable, and valid measures of student achievement (Bachman & Palmer, 2010).

Conclusion

Effective item analysis is a vital component of assessment development and evaluation. By calculating the Difficulty and Discrimination Indices, educators can identify questions that require modification or elimination, ultimately leading to more accurate measurement of student learning. This process also helps in aligning questions with instructional goals, promoting higher-quality assessments that provide meaningful feedback for both students and teachers. Informed decisions based on item analysis contribute to refining assessments that are equitable, challenging, and capable of accurately differentiating student performance levels.

References

• Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press.
• Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1993). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines. Applied Measurement in Education, 6(4), 281-289.
• Hambleton, R. K., & Pitoniak, M. J. (2006). What constitutes a good fit for the Rasch model? In R. H. M. M. (Ed.), Advances in measurement in mathematics and science education (pp. 27-56). Journal of Educational Measurement.
• Angoff, W. H. (1971). The quality of tests: Tests and scoring techniques. New York: Princeton University Press.
• Yen, W. M. (1993). The Rasch measurement approach to scaling. In H. W. Kuhn & H. W. Künzli (Eds.), Scaling and Assessment in Education, 127-148.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage publications.
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory. Psychology Press.
• Frederiksen, N., & White, R. (1988). Test analysis and the role of distractors: An illustration with science items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(1), 31-42.
• Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Assessing Child and Adolescent Psychopathology. Guilford Publications.
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). American Council on Education/Macmillan.