ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
This study is conducted to measure the reliability and validity of superitem test based on Rasch Analysis Model. Superitem test instrument is built based from SOLO Model four hierarchical levels namely unistructural, multistructural, relational and extended abstract. There are four content domains of linear equations tested in superitem test which are linear pattern (pictorial), direct variation, concept of function and arithmetic sequence. Every correct response made by the students involved are references to any stages in SOLO Model which also shows their algebraic solving ability. This research is conducted among community college in Perak state that involved 390 respondents. The results demonstrated the individual reliability is high at 0.90 with separation index of 2.98 whereas the item realibility is also high at 0.99 with separation index of 9.41. Besides that, superitem test has fulfilled the validity aspect construction in Rasch Analysis Model in terms of item fit, polarity item and unidimensionality. In conclusion, superitem test instrument is valid and able to measure algebraic solving ability in community college students.
Abdul Aziz, A., Masodi, M. S., & Zaharim, A. (2013). Asas model pengukuran Rasch: pembentukan skala dan struktur pengukuran. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Biber, A. C., & Incikabi, L. (2016). Problems Posed by Prospective Elementary Mathematics Teachers in the Concept of Functions: An Analysis Based on SOLO Taxonomy. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(3), 796–809.
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press.
Bode, R. K., & Wright, B. D. (1999). Rasch measurement in higher education. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 287–316). Springer Netherlands.
Bond, T., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Chan, C. C., Tsui, M. S., Chan, M. Y. C., & Hong, J. H. (2002). Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy on Student’s Learning Outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511–527.
Fisher, J. W. P. (2007). Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 21(1), 1095.
Jabatan Pengajian Kolej Komuniti. (2017). Matematik (SSM 1022). Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Kaput, J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grade (pp. 5–17). Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis Group & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2003). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lim, H. L., & Idris, N. (2006). Assessing Algebraic Solving Ability of Form Four Students. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 55–76.
Linacre, J. M. (2005). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch Model Computer Programs. MESA Press.
Miller, L. A., Loveler, R. L., & McIntire, S. A. (2013). Foundations of psychological testing: a practical approach (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Ghazali, N. H. C., & Zakaria, E. (2011). Students’ Procedural and Conceptual Understanding of Mathematics. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(7), 684–691.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. MacGraw-Hill.
Pegg, J., & Tall, D. (2005). The fundamental cycle of concept construction underlying various theoretical frameworks. Analyses ZDM, 37(6), 468–475.
Shepard, L. A. (2005). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. ETS Invitational Conference the Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning. New York.
Stacey, K., & Macgregor, M. (1999). Implications for mathematics education policy of research on algebra learning. Australian Journal of Education, 43(1), 58–71.
Tan, Y. H. (2015). The cognitive diagnostic assessment of the learning of algebraic expressions for form two students (Unpublished doctoral dissertations). Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Wright, B. D. (1998). Rating scale model (RSM) or partial credit model (PCM). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12(3), 641–642.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. MESA Press.
In-Text Citation: (Ridzuan et al., 2020)
To Cite this Article: Ridzuan, M. F., Lian, L. H., Fozee, F. A. A., & Nasser, S. N. A. M. (2020). Rasch Analysis Model: Reliability and Validity of Superitem Test Instrument. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 9(4), 1–11.
Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode