Analysis of MCQs in Summative Exam in English: Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Relationship between them

  • Dr. Rabab Mohammad Alareifi Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index, Summative Test, Multiple-Choice Questions
الكلمات المفتاحية: Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index, Summative Test, Multiple-Choice Questions

الملخص

This paper aims to assess the quality of a summative test items to improve its ability to measure students' knowledge acquisition. This test was used in the English subject for11th grade students. This study was administered at a Western district secondary school in Saudi Arabia. The test consisted of  22 multiple-choice questions used to collect data from 94 students randomly. The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) was used for test items, to determine the internal consistency reliability, which reaches a good reliability of α = 0.70. Difficulty and discrimination indices were used as well to evaluate the quality of the test. In addition, the relationships between difficulty and discrimination indices are measured.

The difficulty index analysis showed that 50% of the items are in the average level, while the rest of the items fluctuate among too difficult, moderately difficult, and too easy levels. Moreover, the difficulty index analysis showed that 45.0% of the items are in the good level, while the other items ranged differently among poor, acceptable, and excellent levels. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the relationship between the difficulty index and the discrimination index has a value of (-0.936), which indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship at the level (α≤0.05) between the difficulty index and discrimination index of the multiple-choice question summative test.

To enhance the quality of this test, to better assess students' knowledge acquisition, this study recommends that items with too difficult and too easy levels of difficulty index, and items with poor discrimination index are to be reviewed and modified by English experts. Moreover, reevaluation of the content validity by an English teacher could further improve its quality as well.

المراجع

1. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20-24.

2. Boopathiraj, C., & Chellamani, K. (2013). Analysis of test items on difficulty level and discrimination index in the test for research in education. International journal of social science & interdisciplinary research, 2(2), 189-193.

3. Frey, B. B. (Ed.). (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Sage Publications.

4. Gronlund, N. E. (1998). Assessment of student achievement. Allyn & Bacon Publishing, Longwood Division, 160 Gould Street, Needham Heights, MA 02194-2310; tele.

5. Hingorjo, M. R., & Jaleel, F. (2012). Analysis of one-best MCQs: the difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. JPMA-Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 62(2), 142.

6. Mahjabeen, W., Alam, S., Hassan, U., Zafar, T., Butt, R., Konain, S., & Rizvi, M. (2018). Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency in Multiple Choice Questions. Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University, 13(4), 310-315.

7. Pande, S. S., Pande, S. R., Parate, V. R., Nikam, A. P., & Agrekar, S. H. (2013). Correlation between difficulty and discrimination indices of MCQs in formative exam in physiology. South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 7(1), 45-50.

8. Zimmerman, D. W. (1972). Test reliability and the Kuder-Richardson formulas: Derivation from probability theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32(4), 939-954.

9. Zubairi, A.M & Kassim. N.L.A. (2006) Classical and Rasch analysis of dichotomously scored reading comprehension test items. Malaysian J of ELT Res, 2, pp. 1-20.
منشور
2023-02-22
كيفية الاقتباس
Dr. Rabab Mohammad Alareifi. (2023). Analysis of MCQs in Summative Exam in English: Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Relationship between them . Journal of Educational and Human Sciences, (20), 124-135. https://doi.org/10.33193/JEAHS.20.2023.325
القسم
المقالات