26 3 2010 Vol.26 No.

32010

1 2 2 1

1. 2. 734000

2007-2008 8 16
1
2

3

4



G642.474 A 1672 0520201003 0113 07

[1]



[2]





[3]-[5]
8 16
16

8 16 853 109
12.78% 97 11.37% 72 8.44%
104 12.19% 110 12.89% 118
13.83% 120 14.06% 123 14.42%
243 28.49% 222 26.02% 388

2008 2008-163-1
GJ200904
2009-10-25
1981

- 113 -


45.49%
2007-2008 8 16 16
30% 70%
8

2 1 2 1
SPSS13.0(Statistical Package for the Social Science) 8
16



2007-2008 8 16 1 2

1 8 16
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Skewness Kurtosis
1 65 54.00 87.00 72.24 8.37 -.465 -.389
2 44 31.00 83.00 57.84 12.38 -.220 -.630
1 48 41.00 92.00 68.46 13.24 -.223 -.686
2 49 43.00 88.00 67.41 11.25 -.539 -.278
1 36 69.00 96.00 80.25 6.33 .278 -.162
2 36 60.00 83.00 72.08 4.74 .090 .189
1 52 11.00 81.00 50.21 15.36 .046 -.096
2 52 12.00 93.00 75.15 18.47 -2.056 4.351
1 55 11.00 97.00 75.23 16.48 -1.442 3.552
2 55 74.00 99.00 86.11 5.22 .210 .186
1 59 36.00 92.00 71.83 11.23 -.774 1.127
2 59 47.00 95.00 77.64 9.92 -.645 .306
1 60 53.00 97.00 78.42 11.18 -.550 -.569
2 60 42.00 85.00 66.35 9.52 -.223 -.284
1 63 40.00 85.00 64.21 9.53 -.262 -.126
2 60 20.00 87.00 63.37 10.96 -.972 2.838

2 8 16

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Skewness Kurtosis

1 64 63.50 88.00 76.93 6.01 -.416 -.388
2 44 33.50 84.00 64.42 12.72 -1.133 .617
1 48 43.70 92.00 72.52 11.86 -.454 -.476
2 49 56.50 90.00 74.28 8.26 -.554 -.368
1 37 22.50 90.00 77.70 10.48 -4.162 22.123
2 36 65.00 84.00 74.22 3.79 .042 .435
1 52 44.00 84.50 67.83 9.80 -.406 .161
2 52 10.00 92.50 71.95 16.29 -2.010 4.770
1 56 28.00 93.50 74.73 14.18 -1.089 1.616
2 55 72.00 94.50 81.80 4.39 .310 .595
1 59 50.00 90.00 75.72 8.17 -.704 .862
2 59 56.00 92.50 79.32 7.84 -.717 .240
1 60 56.15 96.15 79.06 9.88 -.641 -.459
2 60 56.50 86.50 73.03 7.01 -.278 -.351
1 63 45.00 83.00 65.67 7.95 -.179 -.018
2 63 22.00 84.50 65.00 12.45 -1.864 4.380

- 114 -
 2010 3

SPSS
3 4
s -1.0 +1.0 s =0
4 4 [6]
s 0 s 0
1 8 16
3 3
2 1 s 2 =-2.056 s 1 =-1.442
4 4 4
1 s 2 =4.351s 1 =3.552s 2 =2.838
60 60 2 8
16 2 1 2 1
3 3 3 3
2 s 2 =-1.133s 1 =-4.162s 2 =-2.010s 1 =-1.089s
3 4 4 4 4
2=-1.864 1 s 1 =22.12s 2 =4.77s 1 =1.62s 2 =4.38
60 8
16 1 7

1 2 2 1

3 2 4 1

5 2 6 1

- 115 -


7 2

2007-2008 8 16 90-100
80-89.5 70-79.5 60-69.5 60
3 4
3

Count 10 43 53
% within 18.9% 81.1% 100.0%
% within 2.4% 10.0% 6.2%
Count 73 111 184
% within 39.7% 60.3% 100.0%
% within 17.3% 25.8% 21.6%
Count 155 107 262
% within 59.2% 40.8% 100.0%
% within 36.7% 24.8% 30.7%
Count 106 80 186
% within 57.0% 43.0% 100.0%
% within 25.1% 18.6% 21.8%
Count 78 90 168
% within 46.4% 53.6% 100.0%
% within 18.5% 20.9% 19.7%
Count 422 431 853
% within 49.5% 50.5% 100.0%
% within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2
N=853 40 26.22 5 =41.59
df=4 p=.00 .05 0.26 p=.00 .05 0 1 0
[7]
1
3
10.0% 25.8%

- 116 -
 2010 3

20.9% 18.5% 36.7%

25.8%
4

Count 4 23 27
% within 14.8% 85.2% 100.0%
% within 0.9% 5.3% 3.2%
Count 94 137 231
% within 40.7% 59.3% 100.0%
% within 22.1% 31.7% 27.0%
Count 187 151 338
% within 55.3% 44.7% 100.0%
% within 44.0% 35.0% 39.4%
Count 106 90 196
% within 54.1% 45.9% 100.0%
% within 24.9% 20.8% 22.9%
Count 34 31 65
% within 52.3% 47.7% 100.0%
% within 8.0% 7.2% 7.2%
Count 425 432 857
% within 49.6% 50.4% 100.0%
% within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2
N=857 40 13.39 5 =26.59
df=4 p=.00 .05 0.17 p=.00 .05
4 5.3%
31.7% 44.0% 35.0%
3
3 4 4

16 5
5 16

N Mean P N Mean P

1 65 72.24 0.72 1 55 75.23 0.75

2 44 57.84 0.58 2 55 86.11 0.86

1 48 68.46 0.68 1 59 71.83 0.72

2 49 67.41 0.67 2 59 77.64 0.78
1 36 80.25 0.80 1 60 78.42 0.78
2 36 72.08 0.72 2 60 66.35 0.66
1 52 50.21 0.50 1 63 64.21 0.64
2 52 75.15 0.75 2 60 63.37 0.63

- 117 -


5 16 0.5 0.7
16
[3]
0.7 0.3-0.7 0.3
2
N=16, 3.50 =.00df=1 p=1.00 .05 0.125p
=.614 .05 8
16

[8]



6
6 16
N Mean D N Mean D
1 65 72.24 0.20 1 55 75.23 0.36
2 44 57.84 0.30 2 55 86.11 0.13
1 48 68.46 0.33 1 59 71.83 0.26
2 49 67.41 0.27 2 59 77.64 0.24
1 36 80.25 0.15 1 60 78.42 0.28
2 36 72.08 0.11 2 60 66.35 0.24
1 52 50.21 0.37 1 63 64.21 0.23
2 52 75.15 0.38 2 60 63.37 0.25

R L.Ebel 1965 D
0.4 D=0.30-0.39 D=0.20-0.29 D 0.19
6 8 16 0.40 5
8 3
Ebel 1965
2
N=16, 1.50 =2.633 df=2 p=2.68 .05
0.37p=.27 .05

[9]
2007-2008 8 16

[10]
8 16
2 5

8 16
D 0.4,

0.5

- 118 -
 2010 3

8 16

0.5

0.4

[1] [J]20042

[2] [J]2003174

[3] [J]20006

[4] [J]
200727 2
[5] [J]20062
[6] [M]2007
[7] SPSS [M]2003
[8] [M]2004
[9] [J]1997152
[10] [M]2007

Quantitative Research on the Quality of College Test Paper

1 2 2 1
Duan Bao-jun Wang Ying-xue Zhao Ai Wang Long

1.Department of Education, Hexi University;

2.Office of Academic Affairs, Hexi University, Zhangye, Gansu 734000
Abstract: The research sample selected in this article is the examination curriculum implemented by 8
departments of Hexi University during the second semester in 2007-2008. The result shows: (1) The distribution of
final and total marks is basically in accordance with normal distribution, some of examination marks are not symmetrical.
(2) With regard to the final examination rank, the excellence proportion of Science students is higher than that of Arts.
With regard to the total examination rank, the excellence proportion of Science students is higher than that of Arts,
however, the failure proportion of Science students is lower than that of arts. (3) The difficulty degree of final
examinations is high, and the rank of difficulty degrees between Science and Arts is insignificant. (4) The differentiation
degree of final examinations is low and the rank of differentiation degree between Science and Arts is insignificant.
Key words: The quality of test paper; Difficulty; Differentiation; Chi-square test
[ ]

- 119 -