UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

B.Ed (Hons) Computer Integrated Studies

CIA 722

TEST AND ITEM ANALYSIS REPORT

BY
A.M.C. NOLAN
96006758
 TEST AND ITEM ANALYSIS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables p. 3
List of figures p. 4
1. Introduction p. 5
2. Purpose of the report p. 5
3. Test analysis p. 5
3.1. Descriptive statistics p. 5
3.2. Frequency graph p. 7
3.3. Test reliability p. 8
4. Item analysis p. 9
4.1. Difficulty indices p. 9
4.2. Discrimination indices p. 10
5. Conclusion p. 11
6. Bibliography p. 11
7. Appendix p. 12

Test & Item Analysis Report 2

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Simple Frequency Distribution p. 6

Table 2 Frequency Data p. 6
Table 3 Grouped Frequency Distribution p. 7
Table 4 Measures of Central tendency p. 7
Table 5 Reliability data p. 9
Table 6 Item difficulty index p. 9 – 10
Table 7 Discrimination index p.10

Test & Item Analysis Report 3

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Frequency Histogram p. 8

Figure 2 Frequency Polygon p. 8
Figure 3 Cumulative Frequency Ogive Curve p. 8

Test & Item Analysis Report 4

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
1. INTRODUCTION
A test was given to 25 students to complete. After completion the data was
captured and analysed. The test was analysed to measure the reliability of
the test. The different responses was also analysed to measure the
discrimination and difficulty. After the analysis the test will be improved by
using the different indices.

2. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

The purpose of this report is to disseminate information on the test analysis of
a test given to 25 students. The test consisted of 20 questions, each with 3
distracters and one answer. The responses of the test was also analysed and
the information is given in part 4 of this report.

3. TEST ANALYSIS
For the purpose of this analysis all the final test values of the students were
rounded off, to eliminate the decimals. The rest of the values ware rounded
to the second decimal. This made all the calculations easier and the
interpretation much better.

All the students’ marks were used to calculate the central tendency. Please
note that 4 of the students did not complete all the questions. Their marks
were calculated using only the number of questions answered.

3.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

When the data was tabulated in a simple frequency distribution (Table 1) the
large amount of variation in test scores it became clear that the interpretation
of the data would be difficult. The data was then tabulated in a grouped
frequency distribution (Table 2).

Test & Item Analysis Report 5

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
Table 1 – Simple Frequency Distribution
Score f
100 2
90 3
85 3
75 1
70 2
65 4
60 1
55 2
50 2
45 1
40 1
30 2
15 1
25

The raw scores were categorized into 8 intervals. The intervals were
calculated by using the range of scores. See Table 2 for the values.

Table 2 – Frequency Data

H 100
L 15
Range 85*
No intervals 8.5
Interval 10

*R (range of scores) = H (highest score) – L (lowest scores)

Each interval consists of 3 values LV (lower value of the interval), UV (upper

value of the interval) and MV (middle value of the interval). The intervals with
their different values and frequency are summarized in Table 3.

Test & Item Analysis Report 6

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
Table 3 – Grouped Frequency Distribution
Interval LV UV MV f Cum f
15 – 25 15 25 20 1 1
26 – 36 26 36 31 2 3
37 – 47 37 47 42 2 5
48 – 58 48 58 53 4 9
59 – 69 59 69 64 5 14
70 – 80 70 80 75 3 17
81 – 91 81 91 86 6 23
92 – 102 92 102 97 2 25

The three measures of central tendency was calculated, see Table 4 for the
values. The mean, mode and median is almost the same, this indicates a
small negative skewed distribution.

Table 4 – Measures of Central tendency

Mean 65.8
Mode 65
Median 65

3.2 FREQUENCY GRAPH

A graphic representation of the data was made to form a Frequency histogram
(Figure 1), Frequency polygon (Figure 2) and a Cumulative Frequency ogive
curve (Figure 3).

Frequency Histogram

7
6
5
4
f
3
2
1
0
15 -25 26 - 36 37 - 47 48 - 58 59 - 69 70 - 80 81 - 91 92 - 100

Intervals

Figure 1 – Frequency Histogram

Test & Item Analysis Report 7

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
 Frequency Polygon

7
6
5
4
f
3
2
1
0
20 31 42 53 64 75 86 97

Middle value of interval

Figure 2 – Frequency Polygon

The asymmetrical distribution of the graph shows a small negative skewed

distribution. The interpretation for a negative skewed graph is that the
students did well in the test. There is majority of high score with only some
low ones.

Cumulative Frequency Ogive Curve

30
25
20
Cum. f 15
10
5
0
25 36 47 58 69 80 91 102

Top value of interval

Figure 3 – Cumulative Frequency Ogive Curve

3.3 TEST RELIABILITY

The Kuder-Richardson coefficient (KR20) was used to calculate the reliability
coefficient. See Table 5 for the reliability data.

Test & Item Analysis Report 8

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
Table 5 – Reliability data
STDEV2 499.55
Total PQ 3.83
# Questions (k) 25.00
k-1 24.00
KR20 1.03

Because the KR20 value is greater than 0.6 we may conclude that the test is
reliable.

4. ITEM ANALYSIS
The item analysis was done to assess the quality and utility of each item. The
multiple choice test consisted of 20 questions, each with 3 distracters.

All the values in this part of the report were rounded off to the second decimal.
This was done because the values used were very small.

4.1 DIFFICULTY INDICES

The difficulty index of each question was calculated and is represented in
Table 6. According to the calculations, 8 of 20 questions (40%) were
unacceptable. The reason for the unacceptability is the fact that the questions
were to easy. The rest of the questions, 60% fall in the acceptable range.

Table 6 – Item Difficulty Index

Question p-value Interpretation Reason
Q1 0.84 Unacceptable To easy
Q2 0.88 Unacceptable To easy
Q3 0.68 Acceptable
Q4 0.48 Acceptable
Q5 0.84 Unacceptable To easy
Q6 0.68 Acceptable
Q7 0.44 Acceptable
Q8 0.52 Acceptable
Q9 0.52 Acceptable
Q10 0.33 Acceptable

Test & Item Analysis Report 9

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
Table 6 – Item Difficulty Index (continuing)
Q11 0.92 Unacceptable To easy
Q12 0.76 Unacceptable To easy
Q13 0.60 Acceptable
Q14 0.84 Unacceptable To easy
Q15 0.80 Unacceptable To easy
Q16 0.92 Unacceptable To easy
Q17 0.63 Acceptable
Q18 0.33 Acceptable
Q19 0.52 Acceptable
Q20 0.64 Acceptable

4.2 DISCRIMINATION INDICES

In order for the discrimination index to be acceptable the value must be
positive. All the discrimination indices were calculated and tabulated in Table
7. All the values are positive and therefore acceptable.

Table 7 – Discrimination Index

Question d-value Interpretation
Q1 0.60 Acceptable
Q2 0.53 Acceptable
Q3 0.73 Acceptable
Q4 0.27 Acceptable
Q5 0.60 Acceptable
Q6 0.47 Acceptable
Q7 0.47 Acceptable
Q8 0.53 Acceptable
Q9 0.47 Acceptable
Q10 0.53 Acceptable
Q11 0.33 Acceptable
Q12 0.60 Acceptable
Q13 0.60 Acceptable
Q14 0.60 Acceptable
Q15 0.53 Acceptable
Q16 0.53 Acceptable
Q17 0.60 Acceptable
Q18 0.13 Acceptable
Q19 0.73 Acceptable
Q20 0.40 Acceptable
5. CONCLUSION
Test & Item Analysis Report 10
A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
The test data was analysed to establish reliability. The graphs drawn from the
data showed an asymmetrical distribution, a small negative skewed
distribution. A negative skewed graph indicates that the students did well in
the test. There is majority of high score with only some low ones.
The Kuder-Richardson coefficient (KR20) was used to calculate the reliability
coefficient. The KR20 for this test is 1.03. Because the KR20 value is greater
than 0.6 it is concluded that the test is reliable.

The test items were analysed to establish difficulty and discrimination. The
difficulty indices shows that 60% of the questions is acceptable and only 40%
is unacceptable. The reason for the unacceptability is the fact that the
questions were to easy. The discrimination values were all positive, which
indicates acceptability.

According to the analysis this is a good test. The test can be improved by
altering some of the question to make it more difficult.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kubizyn T. and Borich G.(2003). Educational testing and measurement:
Classroom application and practice. Seventh Edition. USA: Wiley/Jossey-
Bass Education.

Test & Item Analysis Report 11

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758
 7. APPENDIX
TEST DATA
K
ey C B D D B C D A C B A C B D A A C D B C
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
St
N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 #C #A % G
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20 100 U
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20 100 U
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 20 90 U
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 18 20 90 U
25 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 20 90 U
14 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 17 19 89 U
13 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 17 20 85 U
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 20 85 U
5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 15 20 75 U
4 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 14 20 70 U
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 14 20 70 U
8 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 13 20 65 U
9 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 13 20 65 U
18 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 13 20 65 U
23 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 13 20 65 U
10 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 12 20 60 L
6 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 20 55 L
21 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 20 55 L
7 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 20 50 L
22 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 20 50 L
17 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 17 47 L
15 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 20 45 L
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 19 32 L
24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 19 32 L
19 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20 15 L
#C

21
22
17
12
21
17

12
13

23

19

15

21

20

22

15

13

16
11

8
13

14

12

16

10

16

12
11
#I

4
3
8

4
8

9
#A

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
23
25

24

25

25

25

25

25

24

24

24

25

25
0.84
0.88
0.68
0.48
0.84
0.68
0.44
0.52
0.52

0.33

0.92

0.76

0.60

0.84

0.80

0.92

0.63

0.33

0.52

0.64
P

15.0
15.0
14.0

15.0
12.0

10.0
10.0

14.0

14.0

12.0

15.0

14.0

15.0

12.0

12.0

11.0
8.0

9.0

8.0

5.0
#U

6.00
7.00
3.00
4.00
6.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
3.00

0.00

9.00

5.00

3.00

6.00

6.00

7.00

3.00

3.00

1.00

5.00
#L

0.60
0.53
0.73
0.27
0.60
0.47
0.47
0.53
0.47

0.53

0.33

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.53

0.53

0.60

0.13

0.73

0.40
D

0.16
0.12
0.32
0.52
0.16
0.32
0.56
0.48
0.48

0.67

0.08

0.24

0.40

0.16

0.20

0.08

0.38

0.67

0.48

0.36
Q

0.13

0.22
0.25
0.13
0.22
0.25
0.25
0.25

0.22

0.07

0.18

0.24

0.13

0.16

0.08

0.23

0.22

0.25

0.23

3.83
0.11
PQ

Test & Item Analysis Report 12

A.M.C. Nolan 96006758