International Journal of Education and Research

Vol. 1 No. 12 December 2013

ITEM ANALYSIS OF STUDENT COMPREHENSIVE TEST FOR

RESEARCH IN TEACHING BEGINNER STRING ENSEMBLE USING
MODEL BASED TEACHING AMONG MUSIC STUDENTS IN PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES

Shafizan Sabri
Sultan Idris Education University
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Beginner string ensemble model based teaching is a systematic instruction which incorporate
improvement and new strategies for teaching string ensemble. The instructional design model by
Dick and Carey laid the groundwork for these model based teaching. In the design process,
achievement test were constructed to evaluate learners progress and instructional quality. Using
student comprehensive test as instrument, the study attempts to examine test items of a researcher
made test in the research of string ensemble course for university music students. The quality of
each particular item was analyzed in terms of item difficulty, item discrimination and distractor
analysis. Reliability test were also conducted in addition to the item analysis to observe the quality
of the test as a whole. Two statistical tests were used to compute the reliability of the test: The
Kuder-Richardson Formula (KR20) and the Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 (KR21). The
comprehensive test was piloted in one university in Perak involving 16 music students. The
difficulty index of 41 test items was computed using Microsoft Office Excel. The discrimination
analysis was conducted by means of Pearson product-moment correlation using SPSS 17.0.
Eventually Microsoft Office Excel was used to compute the reliability statistics. The result indicates
that forty four percent of the total test items exceed the difficulty index of 0.8 suggesting easy items.
Fifty nine percent of items obtained acceptable range of discrimination index. Distractor analysis
reveals that some distractors were not effective. The quality of the item as a whole indicates a
reliable value Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR20) value of 0.717 and Kuder-Richardson 21(KR21) value
of 0.703. The findings suggest that in order to measure students performance effectively, necessary
improvement need to be done where items with poor discrimination index should be reviewed.
Keywords: Item analysis, difficulty index, discrimination index, distractor analysis
INTRODUCTION
The instructional design of model based teaching for experimental group was design with
the basis of framework by Dick and Carey model. In order to test the effectiveness of the designed
model based teaching, the researcher applied quantitative approaches. One of the main research
instruments involves a researcher made test to be exact comprehensive test of string instruments.
1

ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

www.ijern.com

The comprehensive test for research in teaching beginner string ensemble may perhaps be
classified as norm-referenced tests. Boyle and Radocy (1987) distinctly indicate that the main
function of a norm-referenced test is to distinguish the performance amongst student in a particular
test. In addition, Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (2002) denote that in norm-referenced tests, individuals
achievement is elucidated with reference to the performance of others within the specified group of
interest. Fraenkel and Wallen (2008) and Ary et al (2002) agree that norm-referenced tests bestow
researchers with a broad range of scores. Thus, the difficulty of the item and the discriminatory
power of each test items should be a matter of concern. Matlock-Hetzel (1997), in her study of basic
concepts in item and test analysis apparently advocates that conducting item and test analyses is an
essential step in evaluating the efficacy of educational programs or courses whereby normreferenced tests is constructed for the usage in instructional purposes.
Instructional Assessment Resources (IAR 2011) believes that an item analysis involves
many statistics that can provide useful information for improving the quality and accuracy of
multiple-choice or true/false (question). The quality of each particular item was analyzed to
evaluate the quality of each item in terms of item difficulty and item discrimination. Item difficulty
is basically the proportion of students who responded correctly to an item. In the meantime, item
discrimination is a measure to differentiate between the performance of students in the high score
group and those in the low score group. In addition to the above measures, distractor analyses were
conducted to determine comparative efficacy of each distractors in the multiple choice items.
Thompson and Levitov in Matlock-Hetzel proposed that the quality of the test as a whole can be
evaluated by means of computing reliability.
Using student comprehensive test as instrument, the purpose of the study, therefore, attempts
to examine test items of a researcher made test in the research of string ensemble course for
university music students.
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The pilot test was conducted at one university in Perak. The subjects consist of diploma
students from the beginning string ensemble class enrolled for that particular semester. The students
were from the beginner string ensemble. The class consists of sixteen students with various music
backgrounds. Their strings instruments were selected before commencing the class. The researcher
did not have any involvement in the string selections process. The class was conducted with eleven
violin, two viola, two cello and two double bass students. In this trial, the classroom was set up in
the string ensemble setting. During each sessions, researcher used LCD projector, video camera,
mixer, microphone, YouTube material, exercises handout and handy-cam. The researcher used the
two selected classroom which was the recital room and selected strings room. The students have to
follow the 14 weeks two hour class schedule on every Tuesday which has been schedule by the
academic department. At the end of the 14 week class, the participants completed a post-test. The
comprehensive string instruments test took place during the timetabled class hours. Participants
were given 45 minutes to complete the test. All the test booklets were collected and kept well for
2

International Journal of Education and Research

Vol. 1 No. 12 December 2013

data analysis procedure. The test papers were then rated by the researcher and students scores were
calculated.
Materials
The string instruments comprehensive test was constructed to evaluate the cognitive aspect
of the students focusing on what the person knows (Schumacher and Mcmillan, 2006). In addition,
they also clarify that the purpose of achievement tests is to measure what has been learned, rather
than to predict future performance (p.191).
The comprehensive test was based on beginning string ensemble contents. The test consists
of multiple choice and short answer question and was modelled after the Bloom taxonomy which
identifies six major categories of objectives specifically knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis and evaluation. These comprehensive tests integrate three objectives to be exact
knowledge, comprehension and application. Section A comprises 15 multiple choice items for
testing specific knowledge and application in string instrument. Each question was followed by a set
of alternate answers. Each set contains four-choice items specifically A, B, C and D with one
correct answer. Section B and C comprises two and five short item question each.
Data Collection and Scoring of Comprehensive Test
Data was assembled from sixteen examinees answer to items in the comprehensive test for
beginner string ensemble level of university student. A total of 41 items were utilized in the item
analysis process. In section A which comprises 15 items, each correct answer was given one point
and zero for each wrong answer. In section B, each correct answer was awarded one point and zero
each wrong answer. Section C includes five multipoint items types of question. Based on Boyle and
Radocy guidelines for multipoint item discrimination index, items for section were analyzed for
discrimination index as follows. For question three, the entire item is regarded totally correct if the
student managed to list all the correct answer to the question. If any one of the answers is incorrect
or missing then the answer is regarded as wrong. Question four requires students to correctly notate
the fingering scale for instruments. The item is regarded totally correct if the student managed to
notate all the correct answer. Similarly, if any one of the answers is missing or incorrect, the answer
is regarded as wrong. For question five, the entire item is regarded totally correct if the student
managed to list four ways of caring and maintaining string instruments. If any one of the answers is
incorrect or missing then the answer is regarded wrong.
Item Statistics
Item Difficulty
The results of students achievement in this comprehensive test were then utilized to
determine the quality of each particular item in terms of item facility, item discrimination and
distractor analysis. Item difficulty, commonly known as p-value refers to the proportion of
examinees that responded to the item correctly. The p-value is calculated using the following
formula:
p=R/T
3

ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

www.ijern.com

where p = item difficulty index

R = the number of correct responses to the test item
T = the total number of responses comprises both correct and incorrect responses
The p-value ranges from 0.0 to 1.00. A high p-value indicates an easy item. Instructional
Assessment Resources (IAR) acknowledged values of difficulty index and their evaluation as
tabulated in Table 1.
Table 1: Evaluation of Item Difficulty for Item Analysis
Item Difficulty Index (p) Item Evaluation
Above 0.90
Very easy item
0.62
Ideal value
Below 0.20
Very difficult item
Source: Instructional Assessment Resources (IAR 2011)

Item Discrimination
MatlockHetzel clarified two ways of determining discriminating power of test item, to be
exact the Discrimination Index and Discrimination Coefficient. Matlock-Hetzel, Si-Mui and Rasiah
(2006) Mitra, Nagaraja, Ponnudurai and Judson (2009) and Boopathiraj and Chellamani (2013)
defines item discrimination as a measure used to discriminate between students in the top with that
of the low group who obtained the correct responses. Fundamentally, the discrimination index
differentiates students who are knowledgeable and those who are not, meticulously revealing top
scorers and low scorers achievement in each item. The value of discrimination index ranges
between -1.0 to 1.0.
Item discrimination index (D) is calculated by the following formula D = (UG-LG)/n. Where D =
discrimination index, UG = the number of students in the upper group 27% who responded
correctly,
LG = the number of students in the lower group 27% who responded correctly and
n = number of students in the upper or lower group. The items were classified accordingly to
their discrimination index with reference to Ebels (1972) guidelines.
Table 2: Evaluation of Discrimination Indexes for Item Analysis
Index of Discrimination Item Evaluation
0.40 and above
Very good items; accept
0.30 0.39
Reasonably good but subject to improvement
0.20 0.29
Marginal items usually need and subject to improvement
Below 0.19
Poor items to be rejected or improved by revision
Source: Ebel (1972) in Ovwigho (2013)

Matlock-Hetzel emphasized the advantage of using discrimination coefficient instead of

discrimination index. Discrimination coefficients includes every single person taking the test
despite the fact that only the upper (27%) and lower scorer (27%) are included in the discrimination
index calculation process. According to Instructional Assessment Resources (IAR), Le (2012),
Owigho , and El-Uri and Malas (2013), discrimination coefficients is a measure using point biserial
correlation. The correlation, commonly known as Pearson product-moment correlation is computed
4

International Journal of Education and Research

Vol. 1 No. 12 December 2013

to determine the relationship between students performance in each item and their overall exam
scores. This paper plump for utilization of discrimination coefficient considering the small sample
size of 16 students with the intention that every single person performance was taken into
consideration. The discrimination coefficient, the Pearson r, for each item was computed using
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.The Pearson, r coefficient ranges
between -1 and 1. Parallel to the discrimination index, a higher value indicates a powerful
discrimination power of the respective test. A highly discriminating item reveals that students with
high score got the item right and students with low score answer the item incorrectly. Items with
negative values should be rejected for the reason that negative value reflects the opposite effects of
discriminating power for that particular item.
Distractor Analysis
Distractors are classified as the incorrect answer in a multiple-choice question. According to
Instructional Assessment Resources (IAR), student performance in an exam item are very much
influence by the quality of the given distractors. Hence, it is necessary to determine the
effectiveness of each item provided distractor as an addition to the item difficulty analysis. Analysis
was conducted only for items in section A of the comprehensive test since distractor analysis are
associated only with multiple-choice formats.
Statistical Analysis
The data from the item difficulty and item discrimination analysis were each conveyed as
mean and standard deviation of the total number of items. SPSS 17 were employed in verifying the
relationship between the item difficulty index and discrimination coefficient for each test item using
Pearson correlation.
Test Statistic
The data of total score for each student were statistically analyzed in terms of mean, median
and standard deviation of the total number of students.
Reliability
Reliability is expressed as the constancy of particular instruments in producing the same
result in repeated measurements. An instrument is considered reliable if the instrument produce
same result every time when use to evaluate identical measurement. Boyle and Radocy proposed
using Kuder Richardson formula for analyzing test with dichotomous items. Data from string
instruments were divided into two sections. Kuder-Richardson 20, a formula which is based on item
difficulty was used to analyse internal consistency of section A in the string instrument
comprehensive test. The value of KR20 range between 0 to 1.The closer the value to 1 the better the
internal consistency. The KR20 formula is commonly used to measure the reliability of
achievement test with dichotomous choices. According to Fraenkel and Wallen, one should attempt
to generate a KR20 reliability coefficient of .70 and above to acquire reliable score. The formula for
estimating reliability is as follows:
5

ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

www.ijern.com

KR20 =

Where n = number of items

SD2 = variance of scores on the test (square of the SD (standard deviation))
P = proportion of those who responded correctly
Q proportion of those who responded incorrectly
Source: Wiseman (1999, p. 102)
The total reliability of comprehensive test (section B and C) was analyzed using KR21
formula. Unlike KR20, KR21 formula assumed that all items comprise equal difficulty. The
formula for calculating KR21 is as follows:
( )

KR21 =

(1

Where n = number of items on the test

M = mean of the scores on the test
SD2 = variances of scores on the test [square of the SD (standard deviation)]
Source: Wiseman (p. 103)

RESULTS
Item Statistic
Item Statistic was employed to evaluate the performance of individual test items utilizing students
responses to each test items.
Item Difficulty
The indices of item difficulty level of each item are presented in Table 7.

Item No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Table 7: Item Difficulty of Comprehensive Test Items

Item Difficulty Item No. Item Difficulty Item No. Item Difficulty
0.44
16
0.44
31
1.0
0.44
17
0.44
32
0.94
0.81
18
0.25
33
0.75
0.69
19
0.63
34
0.50
0.75
20
0.38
35
0.94
0.69
21
0.81
36
0.94
0.75
22
0.56
37
0.88
0.81
23
0.13
38
0.81
0.56
24
0.44
39
0.81
0.88
25
0.31
40
0.56
0.88
26
0.94
41
0.38
0.50
27
0.88
0.81
28
0.94
0.56
29
1.0
0.38
30
1.0

International Journal of Education and Research

Vol. 1 No. 12 December 2013

Based on recommendations by Instructional Assessment Resources (IAR), test items were classified
into three categories in terms of level of difficulty as indicated in Table 8.
Table 8: Distribution of Items in Terms of Level of Difficulty in Categories
Item Difficulty Index (p) Total Item
Easy (Above 0.90)
8
Moderate (0.20 0.90)
32
Difficult ( Below 0.20)
1

Item Discrimination
The coefficient of item discrimination each item is indicated in Table 9.
Table 9: Comprehensive Test Item Discriminations in terms of Discrimination Coefficient
Item No. Discrimination Coefficients Item No. Discrimination Coefficient
1
0.627
22
0.624
2
-0.424
23
0.596
3
0.244
24
0.752
4
0.219
25
0.487
5
0.580
26
0.029
6
0.236
27
0.230
7
0.150
28
-0.022
8
0.149
29
0
9
0.374
30
0
10
0.305
31
0
11
0.455
32
0.183
12
0.534
33
0.294
13
0.403
34
0.558
14
0.149
35
0.234
15
0.093
36
-0.074
16
0.627
37
0.155
17
0.527
38
-0.105
18
0.767
39
-0.010
19
0.625
40
-0.102
20
0.606
41
0.067
21
0.308

Table 8 reveals classifications of test items into five level of discrimination in terms of
discrimination coefficient based on recommendations by Ebel (1972) in Ovwigho (2013).
Table 8: Distribution of Items in Terms of Level of Discrimination in Categories
Discrimination Coefficient
Total Item
Very Good (above 0.40)
15
Reasonably Good (0.30 0.39)
3
Marginal (0.20-0.29)
6
Poor (Below 0.19)
17

ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

www.ijern.com

Distractor Analysis
The distractor analysis conducted on section A of students comprehensive test yields the following
results tabulated in Table 9. Zero responses designates the distractor was not selected by any of the
students.
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Table 9: Response Frequency Distribution of Items in Comprehensive Test

Scorers
A
B
C
D
Item Scorers A
B
C
Top
2
1
4*
1
9
Top
2
1
4*
Low
3
1
3*
1
Low
2
1
5*
Top
2
3
2
1*
10
Top
0
0
1
Low
0
2
0
6*
Low
0
0
1
Top
0
0
2
6*
11
Top
0
7*
1
Low
0
0
1
7*
Low
0
7*
0
Top
3
0
0
5*
12
Top
1
0
3*
Low
2
0
0
6*
Low
0
1
4*
Top
0
3
0*
5
13
Top
0
1
6*
Low
0
1
7*
0
Low
0
0
7*
Top
4*
3
1
0
14
Top
6*
1
1
Low
7*
0
0
1
Low
3*
3
2
Top
0
2
0
6*
15
Top
6
1
1*
Low
0
2
0
6*
Low
3
0
5*
Top
6*
2
0
0
Low
7*
1
0
0
Items mark with * indicates the correct answers

D
1
0
7*
7*
0
1
4
3
1
1
0
0
0
0

A distractor analysis assists in distinguishing plausible distractors from implausible ones. A total of
30 distractors were regarded as implausible due to the fact that those distractors were selected
neither by the top scorer nor the low score. Item 15 clearly indicates a confusing item seeing that
distractor A is selected by more student than the correct answer C.
Statistical Analysis
Table 10 provides the results obtained from the analysis of the item difficulty index and item
discrimination coefficient.
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for item difficulty index and item discrimination coefficient
N

SD

Item Difficulty Index

41

0.673

0.236

Item Discrimination Coefficient

41

0.214

0.278

Figure 1 provides scatter plot showing relationship between difficulty index and
discrimination coefficient of items. Also revealed is the Pearson correlation value, computed
between the two variables. It can be concluded that there is a significant week negative correlation
between the two variables (r = - 0.468, p = 0.02) with increasing value of difficulty index, there is
decrease in discrimination coefficient.
8

International Journal of Education and Research

Vol. 1 No. 12 December 2013

Figure1: Scatter Plot Showing Relationship between Difficulty Index and Discrimination Coefficient of Items

Test Statistic
Descriptive Statistic
The data obtained from the comprehensive test were used in the statistical analysis.
Students scores are organized in a frequency distribution as shown in Table 3. Table 4 provides the
results obtained from the analysis of student comprehensive test score.
Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Score for 16 Music Students on Beginner String Ensemble
Score
Frequency
1
94
1
88
1
82
1
80
1
78
1
72
1
70
1
68
1
66
1
64
3
62
3
60

Total

1128

16

ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

www.ijern.com

TABLE 4: Descriptive Statistics for Comprehensive Test Score

Descriptive Statistic
N (total number of student)
16
Mean
70.5
Median
67
Standard Deviation
10.820

Reliability Coefficient
Reliability coefficient was employed to evaluate the performance of the test as a whole.
Result of string instrument comprehensive test for section A is shown in table 5. The computed
KR20 of the comprehensive test (section A) is .717. According to Fraenkel and Wallen, one should
attempt to generate a KR20 reliability coefficient of .70 and above to acquire reliable score. This
value of KR20 appears to be reliable thus revealing that this comprehensive test is a reasonably
reliable instrument. The total reliability of comprehensive test (section B and C) was analyzed using
KR21 formula. Results of students achievement in section B and C is shown in table 6.

TABLE 5
String instruments comprehensive test (Section A) Scores
Students
Scores
1
13
2
11
3
9
4
11
5
11
6
5
7
6
8
6
9
7
10
6
11
12
12
12
13
11
14
15
15
13
16
12

10

International Journal of Education and Research

Vol. 1 No. 12 December 2013

TABLE 6
Result of string instruments comprehensive test (section B and C)
Students Scores
1
25
2
30
3
28
4
34
5
22
6
24
7
31
8
18
9
25
10
25
11
24
12
20
13
20
14
23
15
23
16
33

Microsoft excel was used to analyze the statistical data for section B and C. Result from the analysis
show that the KR21 for the comprehensive test (section B and C) is .703. The reliability coefficient
for comprehensive test (section B and C) appears to be satisfactory with reference to Fraenkel and
Wallen recommendation stated earlier. This indicates that this test is reasonably reliable instrument.

DISCUSSION
Student comprehensive test was constructed to evaluate the cognitive aspect of the students
in the beginner string ensemble. The item analysis conducted in this study implicates three statistics
to assists in analyzing the effectiveness of each of the comprehensive test questions specifically
item difficulty, item discrimination and distractor analysis.
Item difficulty lends a hand in distinguishing easy item from difficult ones. In general, there
is a good distribution of difficulty throughout the test. Analysis of item difficulty on 41 items of the
comprehensive test denotes that 78% of the test items were in the moderate level of difficulty. Only
44% of the total test item possess difficulty index of over 0.8. Mitra et. al (2009) reported that 40%
of the multiple choice questions of pre-clinical semester 1 multidisciplinary summative tests had the
difficulty level over 0.8. In the meantime, Si Mui and Rasiah in a study analyzing year two
examinations of a medical school found that 40% of the multiple choice question (MCQ) surpassed
the difficulty level of 0.7. 20% of the items with difficulty level of 0.2 and over were classified as
easy items with three questions acquires difficulty index of 1.0 and only 2% were determined to be
difficult questions. Instructional Assessments Resources (IAR) insinuates the usage of easy question
as warm up questions in assessing student mastery. The items that were classified as difficult items
ought to be reconsider in terms of language and content appropriateness. A low value of difficulty
11

ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

www.ijern.com

index may possibly indicate a miskeyed item. Additionally, it may also indicate that the tested topic
were inappropriate In spite of this, difficult questions which results in frustration for some students
function as challenge among the top student as evokes by Schreyer Institute for Teaching
Excellence.
Reviews of literature on the subject of item analysis disclose numerous methods for
evaluating the discriminatory power of individual items for instance discrimination index, biserial
correlation coefficient, point biserial coefficient and phi coefficient. In this study, the point-biserial
coefficient, typically known as Pearson product-moment correlation suggested by Matlock-Hetzel
were selected in calculating the discrimination power. In general a total of 24 items (59% of the
total comprehensive test items) can be categorized as acceptable with point-biserial figures of over
0.20. Inspection on results of the item discrimination analysis discloses a good number of items
with very good discriminating power. 37% of the items regarded as very good items, accomplished
Pearson correlation, r of over 0.4. Even though the overall discriminatory accomplishments of the
comprehensive test were satisfactory, some crucial caveats ought to be considered. A total of 41%
(17) of the total items were classified as poor discriminating items (less than 0.20) with three items
(18%) did not discriminate at all and six items (35%) with negative discrimination coefficient. This
finding was similar to a study conducted by El-Uri and Malas to analyze undergraduate examination
in obstetrics and gynaecology, who reported that 38% of the test items had the discrimination
coefficient less than 0.2 with 23 questions obtained negative discrimination. Items with poor and
negative discrimination coefficient should be highlighted for reviewing purpose. A poor
discriminating power might signify confusing items which were ambiguously worded or indicates a
miskeyed item. Ultimately, items with negative coefficient should be removed from the
comprehensive test. Si Mui & Rasiah and Matloct-Hetzel coincide in the reasoning of the negative
value. They proposed that student in the low achievement group often make a guess in answering
the easy question and by chance come up with the correct answer. Contradictory, students in the
upper achievement group embark upon the easy question too vigilantly and end up choosing the
wrong answer. Items with negative discrimination coefficient should be eliminated from the test as
put forward by El-Uri and Malas and Ovwigho . The reason is that item with negative
discrimination coefficient indicates students with low score got the item right and students with
high score answer the item incorrectly.
A distractor analysis assists in distinguishing plausible distractors from implausible ones. A
high percentage of 70% from the total distractors were regarded as implausible due to the fact that
those distractors were selected neither by the top scorer nor the low score. One item clearly
indicates a confusing item seeing that one distractor is selected by more student than the correct
answer.
Analysis of difficulty index together with discrimination coefficient reveals a total of 41% of
the test items with poor discriminating index had the difficulty index ranging from 0.38 to 0.94.
59% of the 41 test items with acceptable discrimination index had the difficulty index ranging from
0.13 to 0.94. 15 out of 41 items with very good discrimination coefficient acquire the lowest
difficulty index of 0.13 and the highest difficulty index of 0.88. When difficulty index and
discriminating coefficient were put side by side, it is noticeably that item with similar level of
12

International Journal of Education and Research

Vol. 1 No. 12 December 2013

difficulty possess diverse discrimination coefficients. Si Mui & Rasiah denotes this divergence as a
result of students who makes a guess when selecting the correct responses.
In the process of establishing the quality of the test as a whole, the formula developed by
Kuder and Richardson (Wiseman) were used to compute the reliability of the test: The KuderRichardson Formula (KR20) and the Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 (KR21). The computed KR20
of 0.717 and KR21 of 0.703 of the comprehensive test which appear to be satisfactory indicate that
this test is a reasonably reliable instrument in producing consistent scores. Similarly, Lin, Tseng and
Wu (1999) while doing item analysis on multiple choice test items in the Registered Nurse
Licensure Exam reported a KR20 value range 0.86 to 0.94 in the analysis of internal consistency.
Boyle and Radocy in their book highlighted the importance of conducting item analysis.
They advocate that item analysis facilitates test developer in the process of test quality enhancement
which typically involves assessment cycles of preserve, eliminate, improve or endorse particular
item. Problematic items specifically items with ambiguous wording and wrongly keyed be reviewed
based on the calculated difficulty index and discrimination coefficient values to improve the quality
of the test. Content expert should be consulted to improve items identified as problematic in terms
of language and content appropriateness.
CONCLUSION
Results of the study disclose that comprehensive test items with good discrimination
coefficient have a tendency to befall in the range from difficult item to easy item. Alternatively,
items with negative discrimination demonstrate difficulty ranging from moderately difficult to very
difficult range. Auxiliary inspection of the extensive spread of discrimination is indispensible prior
to removing items with poor or negative discrimination. Factors which instigate such poor
discrimination should be delicately considered. Item analysis alleviates test developer in developing
an ideal achievement test which functions as tools to evaluate learners progress and instructional
quality in the model based teaching for teaching beginner string ensemble among students in public
universities.

REFERENCES
Ary, D., Jacobs L.C. & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to Research in Education. (6th ed.).
California: Wadsworth.
Boopathiraj, C. & Chellamani, K. Analysis of Test Items on Difficulty Level and Discrimination
Index in the Test for Research in Education. International Journal of Social Science and
Interdisciplinary Research 2013; 2:2
Boyle, J.D & Radocy, R.E. (1987). Measurement and Evaluation of Musical Experiences.
NewYork: Macmillan.
El-Uri, F.I & Malas, N. (2013). Analysis of Use of A Single Best Answer Format in An
Undergraduate Medical Examination. Qatar Medical Journal 2013:1.
13

ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

www.ijern.com

Fautley,M. (2010). Assessment in Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2008). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (7th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Institute for Interactive Media and Learning (2013). Multiple Choice Questions. Retrieved
November 30, 2013, from University Of Technology Sydney, Institute for Interactive Media and
Learning Web site: http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/assessment/types/mcq/index.html
Instructional Assessment Resources. (2011). Item Analysis. Retrieved November 9, 2013 from
University of Texas at Austin, Instructional Assessment Resources, IAR Web site:
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/assessment/iar/students/report/itemanalysis.php
Le, L.T. (2012). Item Point-biserial Discrimination. Retrieved November 29, 2013 from Australian
Council of Educational Research Web site: http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/Conquest-Notes-5ItemPointBiserialDiscrimination.pdf
Lin, L.C, Tseng, H.M & Wu, S.C. (1999). Item Analysis of the Registered Nurse Licensure Exam
Taken by Nurse Candidates from Vocational Nursing High Schools in Taiwan. Proc Natl Sci Counc
1999; 9(1): 24-31.
Matlock-Hetzel, S. (1997 January). Basic Concepts in Item and Test Analysis. Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin.
Mcmillan, J.H & Schumacher, S. (2005). Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry (6th ed.).
London: Pearson.
Mitra, N.K, Nagaraja, H.S, Ponnudurai, G. & Judson, J. P. The Levels of Difficulty and
Discrimination Indices in Type A Multiple Choice Questions of Pre-clinical Semester 1
Multidisciplinary Summative Tests. E-Journal of Science, Medicine and Education 2009; 3(1):2-7.
Ovwigho, B.O. Empirical Demonstration of Techniques for Computing the Discrimination Power
of a Dichotomous Item Response Test. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education 2013;
3(2): 12-17
Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence. (2013). Improve Multiple Choice Tests Using Item
Analysis.Retrieved November 28, 2013, from Pennsylvania State University, Schreyer Institute for
Teaching Excellence Web site: http://www.schreyerinstitute.psu.edu/Tools/ItemAnalysis/
Sim, S.M & Rasiah R.I. Relationship between Item Difficulty and Discrimination Indices in
True/False Type Multiple Choice Questions of a Para-clinical Multidisciplinary Paper. Ann Acad
Med Singapore 2006; 35: 67-71
14