H. Sepasi
Abstract
The principle of the classical test theory (CCT) have long been used by test developers to construct educational and psychological tests and scales. In recent years, however, it has been found that the CTT is not capable of offering solution for certain problems that the test developer is facing with. ...
Read More
The principle of the classical test theory (CCT) have long been used by test developers to construct educational and psychological tests and scales. In recent years, however, it has been found that the CTT is not capable of offering solution for certain problems that the test developer is facing with. For example, it is said that the CCT is unable to provide a clear indication of the relationship between test items and the examinee's ability that test items are to measure. In other words, classical item analyses statistics don't provide information about how examinees at different ability levels on the trait have performed on the item. Having discovered the limitations of the CCT, psychometricians have tried to introduce new test theory. This article will briefly discuss the basic assumptions of the CCT on which most of the educational and psychological tests and scales are built. Next the test reliability, one of the most powerful and they're lying concepts in the CCT, which was first introduced by the British psychologist, Spearman, in early 20th century, will be reviewed. Finally, the limitations of CCT will be pointed out and the common views of the critics regarding the shortcomings of the CCT will be discussed. Proponents of the new theory believe that any psychological and educational test or scale should provide a clear indication of the true estimation of what is intended to be measured. Therefore the need for new test theories has to be satisfied.
H. Sepasi
Abstract
Teachers have long been concerned with the contributions of’ different types of evaluation to their students achievement. Many believe that the use of multiple- choice items provide greater students achievement and promotes more positive attitudes toward learning. On the other hand, psychometricians ...
Read More
Teachers have long been concerned with the contributions of’ different types of evaluation to their students achievement. Many believe that the use of multiple- choice items provide greater students achievement and promotes more positive attitudes toward learning. On the other hand, psychometricians like Ebe] and Frisbie, believe that there is no significant difference between multiple-choice and true-false test items. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the use of true-false test is as effective as multple-ehoice test in mesauring students’ achievement- A total of 304 university students enrolled in the course, were randomly divided into two groups. One group participitated in a multiple-choice test whereas the other group received true-false items. Instructional strategies including objectives of the course, tests contents, and testing procedures were the same for both groups. Then, in order to find out whether the two groups were similar or different in term of their achievements, the correct response in the two tests were compared. The results showed no significant difference between the final scores of the two groups. This finding indicates that teachers should give attention to the contribution of both multiple- choice and true- false test items in measuring their students achievement.
H. Sepasi
Abstract
In this article attempt has been made to introduce the new test theory, i. e. item response theory, (IRT). The major reason for the development of this new theory was the criticism raised by new psychometrician against old one, i. e. The classical test theory (CTT). Traces of this theory can be found ...
Read More
In this article attempt has been made to introduce the new test theory, i. e. item response theory, (IRT). The major reason for the development of this new theory was the criticism raised by new psychometrician against old one, i. e. The classical test theory (CTT). Traces of this theory can be found in the work of Lowely. In recent years, other test specialists like Lord, and Brinbuam have played a major role in introducing the IRT. In this theory the total test score does not appear to play a very significant role in interperting examinee performance, rather, the test items are studied individually. The theory uses item characteristics curve parameters such as difficulty and discrimination indices to estimate the probability of examinee’s correct response to each test item. This theory is based mainly on two basic assumptions: local independence and unidimensionality of latent trait space. Based on these two assumptions, the probability of correct answers to every test item was first investigated by cummulative normal ogive curve and then by logistic curve for its simpilicity to work with. Lord introduced normal ogive curve, then it was Brinbaum who replaced the normal ogive by logistic curve to facilitate computation. He also designed one-parameter model, (difficulty parameter), two-parameter model (difficulty and discrimination), and three parameter model (difficulty, discrimination, and, guess), all of which can be used in constructing psychological and educational tests.
H. Sepasi
