TEST AND ITEM ANALYSIS REPORT

by
FJ Meintjes
 TEST AND ITEM ANALYSIS REPORT

by

Frans Johannes Meintjes

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree

Baccalaureus Educationis Honores

in

Computer-Integrated Education

Department of Curriculum Studies

Faculty of Education

University of Pretoria

Supervisor: Professor J G Knoetze

September 2007

2
 Descriptive abstract

This report disseminates descriptive statistics (measure of tendency and

variability) on the raw data given.

Raw data was tabulated to summarize the data. Descriptive statistics and
item analysis are included.
 Acknowledgements

Thanks to Professors J. G. Knoetze

for his enthusiastic guidance and support.

ii
 Table of Contents

Descriptive abstract i
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
List of Terminology vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Purpose of report 1
3. Test analyses 1
3.1 Descriptive statistics 1
3.2 Frequency histogram 3
3.3 Test reliability 4
4. Item analyses 5
4.1 Difficulty indices 5
4.2 Discrimination indices 5
5 Conclusion 6
References 7
Test data 8

iii
 List of tables

Table 1 Descriptive statistics 1

Table 2 Steps in constructing a grouped frequency 2
distribution
Table 3 Frequency distribution 2
Table 4 Standard deviation and KR20 5
Table 5 Difficulty index 5
Table 6 Discrimination index 6

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1 The histogram based on a group frequency 3

distribution
Figure 2 A frequency distribution polygon 4
Figure 3 Cumulative value 4

v
 List of Terminology
Cumulative frequency
Descriptive statistics
Frequency
Frequency analysis
Frequency polygons
Reliability
vi
“The cumulative frequency is the
number of data less than (or equal to) a
reference value (X) divided by the total
number of data” (Kubiszyn & Borich
2006).
Numbers used to describe or
summerise a larger body of numbers
(Kubiszyn & Borich 2006).
“Frequency is the measurement of the
number of occurrences of a repeated
event” (Kubiszyn & Borich 2006).
“Frequency analysis is done to obtain
insight into how often a certain feature
occurs” (Kubiszyn & Borich 2006).
“Straight lines to connect the midpoint
of each interval, witch vary in height
depending on the frequency of scores
in the interval” (Kubiszyn & Borich
2006).
“Reliability is the consistency of a set of
measurements or measuring
instrument” (Kubiszyn & Borich 2006).
1. Introduction
In this report data was tabulated to make it more interpretable. Raw data
was used and were listed into a descending order.

2 Purpose of report
The purpose of this report is to disseminate descriptive statistics on raw
data given. The test data was tabulated and a graph was created to
summarize the data.

3. Test analyses
3.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows the mean, mode, median and standard deviation of the
test. The average score was 65.5%.

Mean 65.8
Mode 65.0
Median 65.5
Stdv 21.9

Table 1: Descriptive statistics

Table 1 indicates that this test had a slightly positive skewed distribution
and indicates that the test was good. The mean presents the impression
that the averaged students scored 65.8% and passed the test. The
median shows that 50% of the students scored 65.5% or below. The
average learner passed the test.

In Table 2 the steps to construct a group frequency distribution are shown

where the highest number is shown as 100. The range is determined by
subtracting the lowest number from the highest number. After deciding that
my number of intervals would be 10, the size of the interval was rounded
to the nearest odd number.

1
 Highest 100
score
Lowest score 15
Range of 85
scores
Number of 10
Intervals
Size of 9
interval

Table 2: Steps in constructing a grouped frequency distribution

Table 3 shows the interpretation of a frequency distribution. This table

shows that the highest score of 100% was scored by two learners. The
lowest score of 15% was scored by one of the twenty five learners. Since
65% of the class scored 65% and higher one interpretation is that the test
has been acceptable.

Table 3 also shows the grouped frequency distribution of the twenty five
learners. The size of interval was added to the lower value to determine
the upper value. The frequency shows how many learners scored inside
the interval. Since 15 of the 25 learners in the class scored 65% and
higher one interpretation is that the test may have been acceptable.

Intervals
Lower Upper Middle Frequency Cumulative
Value Value Value frequency
15 24 19.5 1 1
25 34 29.5 2 3
35 44 39.5 0 3
45 54 49.5 4 7
55 64 59.5 3 10
65 74 69.5 6 16
75 84 79.5 1 17
85 94 89.5 6 23
95 100 97.5 2 25

Table 3: Frequency distribution

3.2 Frequency histogram

2
A histogram of the frequency distribution is shown in Figure 1.

It shows that 6 learners scored between 65% and 74% and 6 learners
scored between 85 and 94%.

The frequency polygon is shown in Figure 2.

The frequency polygon indicates that a smooth curve increases from left
to right. This indicates that more learners scored above 65%. Therefore it
also indicates that the test may have been acceptable.

Figure 2 shows that the majority of scores fall above the middle of the
score distribution. There are many high scores and few low scores. The
interpretation we can make is that the learners did well on the test. There
could be a number of reasons for this. The test could be too easy, too
much time may have been given to complete the test or the class may be
exceptionally bright.

Histogram based on frequency distribution

7
6
5
Frequency

4
Series1
3
2
1
0
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85-94 95-100
Intervals

Figure 1: The histogram based on a group frequency distribution

3
 Frequency distribution polygon

7
6
Frequency 5
4
Series1
3
2
1
0
19.5 29.5 39.5 49.5 59.5 69.5 79.5 89.5 97.5
Middle value

Figure 2: A frequency distribution polygon

The cumulative frequency graph is shown in Figure 3

Cumulative frequency

30
Cumulative frequency

25
20
15 Series1
10
5
0
24 34 44 54 64 74 84 94 100
Upper value

Figure 3: Cumulative value

3.3 Test reliability

The standard deviation is shown in Table 4.

The standard deviation refers to the spread of the values around the
mean. Where the standard deviation is big as shown in Table 4 the scores
tend to be further away from the mean. Such a distribution is said to be
heterogenic. The KR20 is the extend to witch items in one form of the test

4
have as much in common with one another as do the items in that one
form with corresponding items in an equivalents form.

K 25
k-1 24
Total pq 3.7
Stdev 21.9
Stdev2 479.6
KR20 1.03

Table 4: Standard deviation and KR20

4 Item analyses
4.1 Difficulty indices

The difficulty indices are shown in Table 5. Questions 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 14,
15 and 16 were too easy. All the other questions were acceptable. Thirty
two percent of the questions were too easy. Sixty eight percent of the
questions were acceptable.

Question p-value
Q1 0.84 Unacceptable Too easy
Q2 0.9 Unacceptable Too easy
Q3 0.7 Acceptable
Q4 0.5 Acceptable
Q5 0.8 Unacceptable Too easy
Q6 0.7 Acceptable
Q7 0.4 Acceptable
Q8 0.5 Acceptable
Q9 0.5 Acceptable
Q10 0.3 Acceptable
Q11 0.9 Unacceptable Too easy
Q12 0.8 Unacceptable Too easy
Q13 0.6 Acceptable
Q14 0.8 Unacceptable Too easy
Q15 0.8 Unacceptable Too easy
Q16 0.9 Unacceptable Too easy
Q17 0.6 Acceptable
Q18 0.3 Acceptable
Q19 0.5 Acceptable
Q20 0.6 Acceptable

Table 5: Difficulty index

5
4.2 Discrimination indices

Table 6 shows the discrimination indices. It shows that all the questions
asked were acceptable.

Question number 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

Table 6: Discrimination index

5 Conclusion
Thirty two percent of the questions asked in this test were too easy. Some
of the questions showed to be too easy can be changed. The
discrimination indices were all acceptable.

References

6
Kubiszyn, T. & Borich, G. 2006. Educational Testing and Measurement:
Classroom Application and Practice (2nd ed.)

Test Data

7
 Key C B D D B C D A
St No Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
14 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
4 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
8 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
9 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
18 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
23 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
10 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
6 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
21 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
7 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
22 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
17 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
15 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
#CORRECT 21 22 17 12 21 17 11 12
#INCORRECT 4 3 8 13 4 8 14 11

8
 Key C B A B B D A A
St No Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
12 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
8 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
23 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
6 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
21 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
7 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
22 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
17 1 1 0 1 1 1
15 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
24 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
#CORRECT 13 8 23 19 15 21 20 22
#INCORRECT 12 16 2 6 10 4 5 2

9
 %-
Key C D B C #CORRECT #ANSWERED % MEAN MEAN*MEAN GROUP
St No Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20
11 1 1 1 1 20 20 100.0 34.2 1169.6 U
16 1 1 1 1 20 20 100.0 34.2 1169.6 U
2 1 1 1 1 18 20 90.0 24.2 585.6 U
3 1 0 0 1 18 20 90.0 24.2 585.6 U
25 1 1 1 1 18 20 90.0 24.2 585.6 U
14 0 1 1 17 19 89.5 23.7 560.4 U
13 0 0 1 1 17 20 85.0 19.2 368.6 U
20 1 1 1 1 17 20 85.0 19.2 368.6 U
5 0 0 1 1 15 20 75.0 9.2 84.6 U
4 1 0 0 1 14 20 70.0 4.2 17.6 U
12 1 0 1 0 14 20 70.0 4.2 17.6 U
8 1 0 1 0 13 20 65.0 -0.8 0.6 U
9 1 0 0 0 13 20 65.0 -0.8 0.6 U
18 1 0 1 1 13 20 65.0 -0.8 0.6 U
23 1 0 1 0 13 20 65.0 -0.8 0.6 U
10 1 1 1 1 12 20 60.0 -5.8 33.6 L
6 0 0 0 1 11 20 55.0 -10.8 116.6 L
21 0 0 0 1 11 20 55.0 -10.8 116.6 L
7 0 1 0 1 10 20 50.0 -15.8 249.6 L
22 0 1 0 1 10 20 50.0 -15.8 249.6 L
17 0 0 0 8 17 47.1 -18.7 351.2 L
15 0 0 0 0 9 20 45.0 -20.8 432.6 L
1 1 0 0 0 6 19 31.6 -34.2 1171.1 L
24 1 0 0 0 6 19 31.6 -34.2 1171.1 L
19 0 0 0 0 3 20 15.0 -50.8 2580.6 L
#CORRECT 15 8 13 16 11989.3
#INCORRECT 9 16 12 9 STDEV2 479.6