Abstract
<p style="text-align: justify;">This study aimed to find the Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Modern Test Theory (MTT) item parameters of the Differential Aptitude Test (DAT) and examined their comparability of them. The item parameters being studied are difficulty level and discrimination index. 5.024 data of the result sub-test DAT were documented by the Department of Psychology and Guidance and Counselling bureau. The parameter of classical and modern test items was estimated and correlated by examining the comparability between parameters. The results show that there is a significant correlation between item parameter estimates. The Rasch and IRT 1-PL models have the highest correlation toward CTT regarding the item difficulty level. In contrast, model 2-PL has the highest correlation toward CTT in the item discrimination index. Overall, the study concluded that CTT and MTT were comparable in estimating item parameters of DAT and thus could be used independently or complementary in developing DAT.</p>
Publisher
Eurasian Society of Educational Research
Reference63 articles.
1. Abed, E. R., Al-Absi, M. M., & Abu shindi, Y. A. (2016). Developing a numerical ability test for students of education in Jordan: An application of Item Response Theory. International Education Studies, 9(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n1p161
2. Adedoyin, O. O., Nenty, H. J., & Chilisa, B. (2020). Investigating the invariance of item difficulty parameter estimates based on CTT and IRT. International Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 7(11). https://bit.ly/3JFG5T3
3. Ahmadi, A., & Thompson, N. A. (2012). Issues affecting Item Response Theory fit in language assessment: A study of differential item functioning in the Iranian National University entrance exam. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.3.401-412
4. AL-khadher, M. M. A., & Albursan, I. S. (2017). Accuracy of measurement in the classical and the modern test theory: An empirical study on a children intelligence test. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 9(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v9n1p71
5. Andrich, D. (2011). Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11(5), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.59
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献