RIta C. Ramos, R.N.

AssIstant ProIessor
UnIversIty oI the PhIIIppInes Open UnIversIty
FacuIty oI Management and DeveIopment
StudIes
MedIcaI SurgIcaI NursIng covers greater
percentage In the totaI number oI hours In
the nursIng currIcuIum
StatIstIcs show s that there has been
IncreasIng percentage oI IaIIIng among test
takes In the Nurse LIcensure ExamInatIon (
PRC 2010 )
1. To estabIIsh the vaIIdIty and reIIabIIIty oI the
Instrument usIng CTT and RT Iramework
2. To determIne the dImensIonaIIty measure oI
Items.
3. To compare the Item dIIIIcuIty and Item
dIscrImInatIon oI the MedIcaI SurgIcaI
NursIng AchIevement ExamInatIon usIng
CTT and RT
137 4
th
year nursIng students Iorm a prIvate
unIversIty In ManIIa.
SeIected on the basIs oI the compIetIon oI aII
subjects In MedIcaI SurgIcaI nursIng
NursIng AchIevement Test Ior MedIcaI
SurgIcaI NursIng ( NAT- MSN ) Is comprIsed
oI 219 Items oI muItIpIe choIce
ParaIIeI to NursIng PractIce , V and 5 oI the
Nurse LIcensure ExamInatIon
Test
CIIent In PaIn
PerI- operatIve Care
AIteratIons In Human FunctIonIng
Test V
AIteratIons In Human FunctIonIng
CIIent In 8IoIogIc CrIsIs
Emergency and DIsaster NursIng
Test V
DIsturbances In PerceptIon and CoordInatIon
MedIcaI
SurgIcaI NursIng
Test objectIves Ior each major categorIes and
Its subsets were derIved Irom course syIIabI
11 topIcs derIved Irom three major categorIes
( NursIng PractIce 3, 4 & 5 )
NursIng subjects have both theoretIcaI and
cIInIcaI components ( Theory and ReIated
LearnIng ExperIence )
TotaI hours summed up to 408 hours In the 11
topIcs ( Theory and ReIated LearnIng ExperIence )
TotaI Item computed Ior each subtopIc were
dIstrIbuted accordIng to IIve domaIns oI New
8Ioom's Taxonomy .
The IInaI structure and draIt oI the achIevement
examInatIon was arranged accordIng to the maIn
three parts : NursIng PractIce ( 100 Items ),
NursIng PractIce V (100 Items ) and NursIng
PractIce V ( 19 Items )
SeekIng oI permIssIon
Test admInIstratIon wIth Research assIstant
ReIIabIIIty oI the achIevement examInatIon
utIIIzIng Iramework oI CIassIcaI Test Theory
usIng SPSS versIon 11.5 ( ChIcago , IIInoIs ).
tem dIIIIcuIty and dIscrImInatIon were
computed and anaIyzed accordIng to IormuIa
WNSTEP versIon 3.69 ( LInacre 2010 ) was
used to assess the IoIIowIng
:unIdImensIonaIIty, hIerarchIcaI orderIng oI
Items, person reIIabIIIty and separatIon, and
Item reIIabIIIty and separatIon.
RT
Person reIIabIIIty .76
tem reIIabIIIty .97
CIassIcaI Test Theory
Cronbach's AIpha .7546
The sampIe yIeIded a person reIIabIIIty person reIIabIIIty person reIIabIIIty person reIIabIIIty oI .76
ThIs ImpIIes that Items are workIng weII
together to consIstentIy reproduce a
partIcIpant's score
The sampIe produced a person separatIon
statIstIcs oI 1.78.
The strata IormuIa was used to determIne the
number oI dIstInct strata ( HP=( 4CP + 1 )]3
).
Thus It resuIted to strata equaIIed to 2.70.
The sampIe can be grouped and separated
Into three dIstInct abIIIty groups.
The Item separatIon was 5.71 when
computed usIng the stated above IormuIa ( (
HP =( 4CP +1 )]3 ) resuIted 7.94.
FIndIngs suggested that the test Items can be
categorIzed Into eIght subgroups.
The Item reIIabIIIty oI the saId achIevement Is
.97.
The SZTD resuIted to .00 ZSTD Iess than 0
IndIcated greater predIctabIIIty.
Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD
CTT dIIIIcuIty
RT dIIIIcuIty
.282
0.137854
.122
.1209
There were 139 Items ( 63.47 Z ) consIdered
as Average; 80 Items ( 36.52 Z ) dIIIIcuIt.
MajorIty oI reasonabIy good Items, margInaI
Items and poor Items were aII Irom test 3.
ResuIted to the IoIIowIng : oI the 219 Items, 9
Items were poor Items ( 4, 10Z ) , 8 Items
were margInaI ( 3.65 Z ), 27 Items ( 12.37 Z )
were reasonabIy good Items, 11 Items ( 5 Z )
were good Items and 164 Items ( 74.88 Z)
were very good Items.
The nIne poor Items and dIIIIcuIt were as
IoIIows : Items # 106, 185, 92, 157, 6, 72,
117, 129 and 147.
ReIIects the matchIng oI abIIIty wIth dIIIIcuIt
oI Item.
The mean oI Items was 1 IogIt beIow the
sampIe.
The abIIIty oI the partIcIpants was hIgher than
the aII the dIIIIcuIt Items,
There were two potentIaI gaps ( Iocated 106,
185, 72 and 92 );Irom 92 and 157;
addItIonaIIy Irom 157 and 197 and 6 )
The gaps are not sIgnIIIcant consIderIng that
Is Iess than 2.00 IogIts
Mean Mean Mean Mean SD SD SD SD
CTT
dIscrImInatIon
RT
dIscrImInatIon
0.564729
1.02386
0.245878
0.310584
The utIIIzatIon oI two Irameworks In testIng
IntensIIIed and strengthened the stabIIIty oI
the achIevement examInatIon.
CTT and RT yIeIded reIIabIe resuIts : .7546
and .97 respectIveIy
RT has person reIIabIIIty whIch Is one oI the
IImItatIons oI CTT.
Person reIIabIIIty shows the consIstency
across partIcIpant's score.
Cenerated three dIstInct strata.
Test Items can be categorIzed Into eIght
subgroups Instead oI 12 subjects Instead oI
12 subtopIcs.
The resuIts oI CTT and RT are aImost
IndIstInct.
MajorIty oI the dIIIIcuIt Items IdentIIIed In
CTT are synonymous wIth RT resuIts
RT can predIct the probabIIIty oI each
student to answer such Item correctIy or
IncorrectIy based on the IogIt. Hence , It
provIdes IndIvIduaI assessment Instead oI
group.