Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
Region 02(Cagayan Valley)
SCHOOLS DIVISION OFFICE OF ISABELA
STA. FILOMENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL
San Mariano I District
Sta. Filomena, San Mariano, Isabela 3332 School ID:500069

Item Analysis of Test Items in an

Araling Panlipunan Examination

SHERYL G. GUZMAN
GRADE 8 -AP SUBJECT TEACHE
Rationale

The quality of instruction and the outcomes of learning could be measured at its
best when we use the appropriate tools and techniques that will truly become
representative of such endeavor. Giving quality assessment through valid and reliable
tests is a good measure of an effective instruction, thus it reflects teacher-efficiency and
curricular stability. It is for this reason that this project was conceived; through looking
into our teacher-made tests we can see the application, practice, and observance of
assessment strategies and countering (if not, avoiding) undesirable mechanisms that
has permeated the “testing and evaluating” culture.

Project Specification

This Project assignment was designed to look into the Matching-Type type of
test. A 10-item matching type must be item-analyzed and later subjected into tests for
validity and reliability.

Respondents

The respondents of this Project 1 were 28 Grade 9 Araling Panlipunan students

of Sta Filomena Integrated School. The respondents belong to a heterogeneous group
of learners wherein they vary in terms of ability and intelligence. These respondents
took their First Periodical Examination with which part of the exam was a 10-item
matching type portion.

Instrument (Items)

Below is the 10-item matching type of test that was administered to respondents:
II. PAGTATAMBAL. Itapat ang mga deskripsyon sa Hanay A sa mga tinutukoy nitong personalidad sa
Hanay B. ISULAT ang MALAKING titik sa mga inilaang patlang. Dalawang puntos bawat tamang
kasagutan.
Mga Deskripsyon Mga Pinuno ng Kaharian
_____1.)Sa panahon niya narating ng India ang Ginintuang Panahon A. Asoka
nito B. Aurangzeb
_____2.)Pinasimulan niya nag paggawa ng Great Wall of China C. Chandra Gupta II
_____3.) Nagtatag ng sentralisadong pamahalaan sa Cuzco D. Hatshepsut
_____4.)Itinuring na unang babaeng pharaoh E. Kublai Khan
_____5.) Tumanggap kay Marco Polo sa kanyang kaharian F. Liu Bang
_____6.) Pinakabatang pharaoh na namuno sa edad na 9 G. Pachacuti
na taong gulang H. Rameses II
_____7.)Kinilala din siya sa pangalang Gaozu; inag-isa ang Legalism at I. Shah Jahan
Confucianism sa pamumuno J. Shi Huangdi
_____8.) Ipinatayo niya ang Taj Mahal bilang tanda ng pag-ibig sa K. Sundiata Keita
asawang pumanaw na L. Tutankhamen
_____9.) Namuno sa pananakop sa kaharian ng Ghana at nagtatag sa M. Wudi
Imperyong Mali
____10.)Ipinagbawal niya ang suttee; ipinatupad ang relihiyong Islam
sa India
Results and Discussions

After the examination was given, it was then checked, and the Matching-Type
portion was coded and labeled for Item Analysis. The tables below show the results of
such. Since the number of respondents is less than 30, the higher and lower groups
were distributed equally by 50% of the respondents’ population. Looking through the
items and the responses we can see that in items #1, 3, and 5 are items which show
that more respondents in the high group got the answer correctly than in the low group
but after doing the item analysis computations, #5 was categorized as a poor item in
general while items #1 & 3 are considered as good and fair items respectively (refer to
Table 2).

In terms of item difficulty (refer to Table 2), three items were considered very
easy (items # 2, 4, & 10) since these items yielded results which shows that the low
group had a good chance at “arriving” at the correct answer, just as the high group had
when concurred with the index of discrimination computations wherein these items
along with item #6 (which was identified as an “easy” item). The distribution of the
difficult items are as follows: only one item (#7) is considered to be very difficult, another
one as moderately difficult (#1) while three items (#3, 8, & 9) are said to be difficult.

Looking through the indices of discrimination, it is worth to be noted that 40% of

the whole test is a relative discriminant. Items # 1, 3, 8, 9 are found to be very good
items with item #7 as marginally good while the rest of the items are considered poor
items; save for the fact that item #5 is considered to be very good but because it yielded
with 0.607 difficulty index it later turned out to be unfavorable for this item to be retained
for item banking. Referring again to Table 2, we can fairly draw out an assumption that
when this test was administered to the said group, those items with very easy and easy
difficulty indices are also labeled as poor items hence they are most often rejected.
Consequently those difficult items are placed to be very good items, too as the data
suggests. As a whole only item #1 has yielded both a favorable response in both indices
od difficulty and discrimination that is why among the ten items it gained the “retained”
status while 5 (items #2, 4, 5, 6, & 10) out of the 9 remaining are bound for rejection
from the item bank; making the other 4 subject for revision. In sum, the mean for the
indices indicate that the items are moderately difficult and that the test as a whole is
reasonably good (refer to Table 3).

Lastly, applying the standard measure for reliability, KR-20 and KR-21, with
results of 0.9406 and 0.8608 respectively, we can safely assume that this test when
administered to the said group is reliable.
Accompanying Tables of the Item Analysis for a 10-item Matching Type of Test
Table 1 Item Analysis of the 10-item Matching Type

Student Rank Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
C 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
X 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9
Y 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9
T 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
N 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7
P 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7
Q 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7
E 9 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 6
U 10 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 6
Z 11 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 6
AB 12 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 6
D 13 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
F 14 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5
Student Rank Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
I 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
K 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
A 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
G 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
H 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
J 6 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
L 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
M 8 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
O 9 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
R 10 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
S 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
V 12 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
W 13 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4
AA 14 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 4
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
Hc 12 12 11 13 13 8 4 9 6 12
Lc 1 14 0 12 4 12 0 1 0 14
p 0.464 0.929 0.393 0.893 0.607 0.714 0.143 0.357 0.214 0.929 5.643
D 0.786 -0.143 0.786 0.071 0.643 -0.286 0.286 0.571 0.429 -0.143 3.000

Table 2 Description & Interpretation of the 10-item Matching Type

Item Difficulty Index (p) Description Discrimination Index (D) Description Type of Item Decision
1 0.464 Moderately Difficult 0.786 Very Good Item Good Item Retain
2 0.929 Very Easy -0.143 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
3 0.393 Difficult 0.786 Very Good Item Fair Item Revise
4 0.893 Very Easy 0.071 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
5 0.607 Easy 0.643 Very Good Item Poor Item Reject
6 0.714 Easy -0.286 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
7 0.143 Very Difficult 0.286 Marginal Item Fair Item Revise
8 0.357 Difficult 0.571 Very Good Item Fair Item Revise
9 0.214 Difficult 0.429 Very Good Item Fair Item Revise
10 0.929 Very Easy -0.143 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
Table 3 Item Summary for Matching Type Item Analysis

Summary
Retained #1
Revise #3, 7, 8, 9
Reject #2, 4, 5, 6, 10
Mean
p 0.564 Moderately Difficult Items
D 0.300 Reasonably Good Items

Table 4 Results for Reliability

Student Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
A 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
C 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
D 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
E 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 6
F 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5
G 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
H 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
I 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
J 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
K 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
L 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
M 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7
O 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
P 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7
Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7
R 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
S 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
T 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
U 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 6
V 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
W 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4
X 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9
Y 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9
Z 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 6
AA 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 4
AB 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 6
# of correct response 13 26 11 25 17 20 4 10 6 26
p 0.46 0.93 0.39 0.89 0.61 0.71 0.14 0.36 0.21 0.93 5.6

q=1-p 0.54 0.07 0.61 0.11 0.39 0.29 0.86 0.64 0.79 0.07

pq 0.2487 0.0663 0.2385 0.0957 0.2385 0.2041 0.1224 0.2296 0.1684 0.0663
∑ pq 1.6786
SD 3.308
K-R20 K-R21
s² 10.94 r 0.9406 ks² 109.4 r 0.8608
Rationale

As an offshoot of the analysis of the first type of test, this subsequent endeavor
aims to develop the teacher’s capacity and ability in constructing valid and reliable test
instruments that follow the sound principles of assessment as well as effectively apply
their knowledge of theories relevant to classroom assessment and evaluation of
learning outcomes. This further enhances the skill of teacher-educators to fully look into
areas that lack attention in the preparation, formulation, and administration especially of
teacher-made tests and further this strengthens the notion that a well thought-of and
carefully planned assessment procedure will result to optimum attainment of
instructional objectives.

Project Specification

As this was delegated to the Matching-Type type of test, the assigned teacher
was tasked to further develop a new set of a 10-item matching type of test that will be
pilot-tested and therefore must be item-analyzed and subjected into tests for validity and
reliability. In conclusion, comparative analysis must therefore be drawn out from the
previous endeavor.

Respondents

The respondents of this Final Phase of this Project were the same group
(section) of 28 Grade 9 Araling Panlipunan students of Sta Filomena Integrated School.
it is worth noting again that the respondents belong to a heterogeneous group of
learners with varying ability and intelligence. Luckily again in this instance, the
respondents took their Second Monthly Examination in which part of the exam was a
10-item matching type portion.
Instrument (Items)

Below is the 10-item matching type of test that was administered to respondents:

II. PAGTATAPAT. Pagtambalin ang mga deskripsyon ng MGA PINUNO, LIDER, at PERSONALIDAD sa
MITOLOHIYANG GREEK sa Hanay A sa kanilang mga PANGALAN sa Hanay B. ISULAT ang iyong sagot
sa mga inilaang patlang. Dalawang puntos ang makakamit bawat wastong sagot.

Mga Deskripsyon Mga Personalidad

______1) Sa kanyang pamumuno ay itinatag niya ang direct democracy A. Alexander
B. Aphrodite
______2) Siya ay pataksil na pinaslang ng sariling mga tauhan para C. Ares
maagaw ang trono ng Macedonia sa kanya noong 336 BCE D. Athena
E. Cleisthenes
______3) Tagapagtatag siya ng pinakamalawak na imperyo sa buong
mundo nang talunin at nasakop niya ang Imperyong Persian
F. Darius I
at umabot siya sa bahagi ng Asya sa pagitan ng 334-327 BCE G. Helen
H. Helot
______4) Idineklara bilang pinakamagandang diyosa sa Olympus na I. Homer
sinasabing dahilan daw umano sa Trojan War J. Leonidas
K. Minos
______5) Isa sa mga dakilang hari ng Persia na lumusob sa L. Pericles
Greece partikular sa polis ng Ionia; ito ang nagpasimula sa M. Philip II
banta ng pananakop ng mga Persian sa Greece N. Solon
______6) Naturingang diyosa ng digmaan at karunungan; sinasabing
isinilang mula sa utak ng kanyang ama

______7) Maalamat na hari ng mga Knossos; ang sinasabing ama ng

halimaw na nakatira sa Labyrinth

______8) Haring Spartan na namuno sa 300 sundalo na kinatagpo si

Xerxes sa labanan sa Thermopylae

______9) Sa kanyang panunugkulan ipinatupad niya ang ostracism

upang mapangalagaan ang Athens sa mga kurakot na pinuno

______10) Ang kanyang pangalan ay nangangahulugang siya ang

pinagmulan ng mga Greek; ito ang tawag o turing ng mga
Greek sa kanilang sarili

Results and Discussions

After the examination was given, it was then checked, and the Matching-Type
portion was coded and labeled for Item Analysis. The accompanying tables below show
the results of such.
Results and Discussions (cont’d.)
At the outset this instrument being administered has undergone a relatively
thorough preparation in terms of objective matching and alignment of items since this is
a matching-type of test. As will be reflected in the results of the indices of difficulty and
discrimination, we can glean that this instrument has fairly observed the principles of
high-quality assessment.

First, let us take into consideration Table 2’s indices of difficulty per item. Only
item #4 is considered easy items while the rest of the 9 items are progressively difficult
such that items #1, 3, 5, 7, & 8 are identified as difficult; then items #6 & 9 are
moderately difficult; and finally items #2 & 10 are very difficult ones. Seeing this
distribution of difficulty we can safely subsume that the test items are valid and that they
effectively measure up to the objectives. However when tested for discrimination, there
is still a good number of items that are found out to be non-effective determinants of
knowledge; let us take the case of these items, namely: items # 2, 4, 8, & 10 are labeled
as “poor” items because of the fact that item #2 being an easy item and items #2 & 10
are very difficult ones could well be correlated to non-discriminating since of their
extremity because these yielded non-conclusive results in the responses of the test-
takers of the high and low group. But what about item #8, which is a moderately difficult
item, also considered as poor? Simply because more students from the low group got it
right than in the high group (5 out of 14 in the Lc; while 4 out of 14 in the Hc).

Over-all this same type of test that is administered this time to the same set of
respondents has gained improvement as Table 3 shows. Two items are considered
‘bankable’ and thus retained while the rest id equally divided into revision or rejection.
These results, as this project implementer considers is an achievement in itself
compared to the previous (initial) phase’s output; with the mean of the indices pointing
out that the test items are difficult but are reasonably good makes an indicator favorable
to high quality tests as evidenced by the reliability of 0.9634 and 0.9346 of the KR-20
and KR-21 respectively.
Accompanying Tables of the Item Analysis for a 10-item Matching Type of Test
Table 4 Item Analysis of the 10-item Matching Type

Student Rank Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
P 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
F 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
A 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6
B 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6
L 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5
Q 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5
R 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5
T 8 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5
U 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5
E 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4
H 11 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
I 12 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
W 13 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4
C 14 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
Student Rank Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
D 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3
G 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
J 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
X 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
AA 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
AB 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
AC 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
K 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
M 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
N 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
S 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Z 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
O 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
Hc 7 3 5 10 6 12 10 4 14 0
Lc 2 1 1 9 0 1 1 5 0 0
p 0.321 0.143 0.214 0.679 0.214 0.464 0.393 0.321 0.500 0.000 3.250
D 0.357 0.143 0.286 0.071 0.429 0.786 0.643 -0.071 1.000 0.000 3.643

Table 5 Description & Interpretation of the 10-item Matching Type

Item Difficulty Index (p) Description Discrimination Index (D) Description Type of Item Decision
1 0.321 Difficult item 0.357 Reasonably Good Item Fair Item Revise
2 0.143 Very Difficult item 0.143 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
3 0.214 Difficult item 0.286 Marginal Item Fair Item Revise
4 0.679 Easy Item 0.071 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
5 0.214 Difficult item 0.429 Very Good Item Fair Item Revise
6 0.464 Moderately Difficult 0.786 Very Good Item Good Item Retained
7 0.393 Difficult item 0.643 Very Good Item Fair Item Revise
8 0.321 Difficult item -0.071 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
9 0.500 Moderately Difficult 1.000 Very Good Item Good Item Retained
10 0.000 Very Difficult item 0.000 Poor Item Poor Item Reject
Table 6 Item Summary for Matching Type Item Analysis

Summary
Retained # 6, 9
Revise # 1, 3, 5, 7
Reject #2, 4, 8, 10
Mean
p 0.325 Difficult Items
D 0.364 Reasonably Good Items
Table 4 Results for Reliability

Student Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Total
A 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6
B 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6
C 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
D 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3
E 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4
F 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
G 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
H 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
I 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
J 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
K 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
L 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5
M 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
N 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
Q 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5
R 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5
S 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
T 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5
U 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4
X 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Y 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Z 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
AA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
AB 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
# of correct response 9 4 6 19 6 13 11 9 14 0
p 0.32 0.14 0.21 0.68 0.21 0.46 0.39 0.32 0.50 0.00 3.3
q=1-p 0.68 0.86 0.79 0.32 0.79 0.54 0.61 0.68 0.50 1.00
pq 0.2181 0.1224 0.1684 0.2181 0.1684 0.2487 0.2385 0.2181 0.2500 0.0000
∑ pq 1.8508
SD 3.731
K-R20 K-R21
s² 13.92 r 0.9634 ks² 139.2 r 0.9346