Main Article Content

Abstract

The study made use of instrumentation research design while item response theory was applied, to develop and validate Basic Science multiple-choice tests. 600 junior secondary school II students consisted of a sample that was randomly selected from 20 government co-education secondary schools in Udi education zone of Enugu State, Nigeria. The study was guided by six research questions. A 40-test item of Basic Science multiple choice test was constructed by the researchers and used to collect data. Three experts subjected the instrument to content and face validation to ensure its validity. Two of them were from the departments of Science education and educational foundations, respectively. A reliability index of 0.85, was realized. Analysis of the data that were generated, was carried out, using the maximum likelihood estimation technique of BILOG-MG computer programming. It revealed that 40-test items with the appropriate indices consisted of the final instrument developed and was used to assess the ability of students in Basic Science. The result of the study confirmed the reliability of the items of the Basic Science Multiple choice questions based on the three-parameter (3pl) model. The findings again revealed that the multiple-choice Basic Science test items were difficult and that there was differential item functioning in Basic Science among male and female learners. Recommendations that were in line with the findings were made, such as that: teachers and examination bodies should adopt and encourage IRT in the development of test instruments used in measuring the ability of students in Basic Science and other subjects.

Keywords

Achievement Test Basic Science Differential Item Functioning (DIF) Item Response Theory (IRT) Multiple Choices

Article Details

How to Cite
[1]
Ani, M.I., Ekeh, D.O., Fuente, J.A.D. and Obodo, A.C. 2022. An Application of Item Response Theory to Basic Science Multiple-Choice Test Development and Validation. International Journal on Integrated Education. 5, 11 (Nov. 2022), 4-15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17605/FH4UD.

References

  1. 1. Adedoyin, O.O. (2010). Investigating the invariance of person parameter estimates based on classical test and item response theories. International journal of educational Science. Retrieved from http://www.uniBotswana./journal/ education /Science
  2. 2. Anene, G.U. & Ndubisi, OG (2003). Test development process. In B. G. Nworgu (Ed.), Educational measurement and evaluation: Theory and practice pp.110-122). Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.
  3. 3. Baker, F.B. (2001). The Basics of item response theory. (2nd ed.).United States of America: ERIC clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation.
  4. 4. Berondo, R.G. & Dela Fuente, J.A. (2021). Technology Exposure: Its Relationship to the Study Habits and Academic Performance of Students. Utamax : Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, 3(3), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.31849/utamax.v3i3.7280
  5. 5. Black, P.J. & William, D. (2009). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education. 5, 7-74
  6. 6. Chong, H.Y. (2013). A Simple guide to the Item Response Theory (IRT) and Rasch modeling. Retrieved from March, 2013, from http:// www.creativewisdom.com.
  7. 7. Cherkesova, L.V. (2016). Problemy sovremennoi fundamentalnoi nauki [Problems of modern fundamental Science]. Moscow: Publishing house of the Academy of Natural History. [In Rus.]
  8. 8. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  9. 9. Davis, L.L. (2002). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with polytomous scored items. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, of Texas at Autin.
  10. 10. Dela Fuente, J.A. (2021). Contributing factors to the performance of pre-service physical Science teachers in the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) in the Philippines. Journal of Educational Research in Developing Areas, 2(2), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.47434/JEREDA.2.2.2021.141
  11. 11. Dela Fuente, J.A. & Biñas, L.C. (2020). Teachers’ competence in information and communications technology (ICT) as an educational tool in teaching: An empirical analysis for program intervention. Journal of Research in Education, Science and Technology, 5(2), 61-76.
  12. 12. Dela Fuente, J.A. (2019). Driving Forces of Students’ Choice in specializing Science: a Science education context in the Philippines Perspective. The Normal Lights, 13(2), 225-250.
  13. 13. Dela Fuente, J.A. (2021). Facebook messenger as an educational platform to scaffold deaf students’ conceptual understanding in environmental Science subject: A single group quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Education, 14(1), 19-29. doi:10.17509/ije.v14i1.31386
  14. 14. Dela Fuente, J.A. (2021). Implementing inclusive education in the Philippines. College teacher experiences with deaf students. Issues in Educational Research, 31(1), 94-110. http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/dela-fuente.pdf
  15. 15. Ebuoh, C.N. (2018). Effects of Analytical and Holistic Scoring Patterns on Scorer Reliability in Biology Essay Tests", World Journal of Education.
  16. 16. Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2013). National Policy on Education (4th ed.). Lagos: NERDC press.
  17. 17. Harlen, W. & Deakin-Crick, R. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning. In EPPI Centre (Ed.), Research evidence in education library (1.1 ed., pp. 153–).
  18. 18. Harris, D. (2005). Educational measurement issues and practice: comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3- parameter IRT models. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1989.tb00313.x
  19. 19. Henard, D.H. (2000). Item response theory, in reading and understanding more - multivariate statistics, Vol. II, Larry Grimm and Paul Yarnold, (Eds)., Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 67-97.
  20. 20. Huba, M.E. & Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bac
  21. 21. Karami, H. (2010). A Differential Item Functioning analysis of a language proficiency test: an investigation of background knowledge bias. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis. University of Tehran, Iran.
  22. 22. Madu, B.C. (2012). Analysis of Gender-Related Differential Item Functioning in Mathematics Multiple Choice Items Administered by West African Examination Council (WAEC). Journal of Education and Practice. Retrieved
  23. 23. May, 15, 2012, from ISSN /2222.1735 (Paper) 2222-288X (Online) Vol 3(8).
  24. 24. Malcolm, T. (2003). An achievement test. Retrieved November, 20, 2013, from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an- achievement-test.htm
  25. 25. Makama, G.A. (2013). Patriarchy and Gender Inequality in Nigeria: The Way Forward.European Scientific Journal June 2013 edition vol.9, No.17 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
  26. 26. Meredith, D.G., Joyce, P.G., & Walter, R.B. (2007). Educational research: an introduction (8th ed.). United State of America: Pearson Press.
  27. 27. Nkpone, H.L. (2001). Application of latent trait models in the development and standardization of physics achievement test for senior secondary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
  28. 28. Nworgu, B.G. (2015). Introduction to Educational Measurement and evaluation: theory and practice (2nd ed.). Nsukka: Hallman Publisher.
  29. 29. Obinne, A.D.E. (2008). Psychometric properties of senior certificate biology examinations conducted by West African Examinations council: Application of item response theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
  30. 30. Obinne, A.D.E. (2012). Using IRT in determining test item prone to guessing. Reprieved June, 20, 2013, URL: http://dx.doi.org/wje.v2 n1p91.
  31. 31. Obinne, A.D.E. (2013). Test item validity: item response theory (IRT) perspective for Nigeria. Research Journal in Organizational Psychology & Educational Studies 2(1). Retrieved January, 28, 2014, from www.emergingresource.org
  32. 32. Obodo, A.C., Ani, M.I., & Neboh, P.O (2021). Effects of guided inquiry and lecture teaching methods on junior secondary school Basic Science students’ academic achievement. Journal of scientific Research and Methods. Maiden Edition. 18-29.
  33. 33. Okoro, O.M. (2006). Measurement and evaluation in education. Uruowulu-Obosi: Pacific Publishers Ltd.
  34. 34. Onunkwo, G.I .N. (2002). Fundamentals of education measurement and evaluation. Owerri: Cape Publishers Int’l Ltd.
  35. 35. Troy-Gerard, C. (2004). An empirical comparison of item response theory and Classical test theory item/person statistics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Texas A&M.
  36. 36. Reeve, B.B. (2002). An introduction to modern measurement theory. Bethesda, Maryland: National cancer institution.
  37. 37. Reeve, B.B. & Fayers, P. (2005). Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire items and scale properties. In P. Fayers and R.D.
  38. 38. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quantity of life in clinical trials: method of practice. (2nd ed.). USA: Oxford university press. Retrieved September, 11, from http://cancer. Unic.edu/research/faculty/display member-plone.asp? ID-694