Perbandingan Properti Psikometri antara Tes PAPs  Berbentuk Computer-Based dan Paper and Pencil Test

Ariana Marastuti; Wahyu Jati Anggoro; Ramadhan Dwi Marvianto; Abdullah Azzam Al Afghani

doi:10.22146/gamajop.51852

Perbandingan Properti Psikometri antara Tes PAPs Berbentuk Computer-Based dan Paper and Pencil Test

Ariana Marastuti, Wahyu Jati Anggoro, Ramadhan Dwi Marvianto, Abdullah Azzam Al Afghani

(Submitted 25 November 2019)

(Published 23 May 2020)

Abstract

Perkembangan zaman yang diikuti dengan perkembangan teknologi telah menawarkan berbagai kemudahan dalam hal administrasi tes. Salah satunya adalah administrasi tes berbasis komputer atau yang lazim dinamakan dengan Computer Based Test (CBT). CBT dikembangkan untuk menjadi alternatif penyelenggaraan tes dengan menggunakan Paper and Pencil Test (PPT). Secara praktis CBT memiliki banyak keuntungan dibanding dengan PPT namun perbandingan mengenai properti psikometris pada kedua bentuk tes ini masih perlu ditelaah lebih lanjut. Penelitian mengenai paralelisme kedua model administrasi tes ini belum banyak dilakukan, terutama pada tes-tes yang dikembangkan oleh Fakultas Psikologi UGM seperti Tes Potensi Akademik Pascasarjana (PAPs). Analisis pada penelitian ini dilakukan dengan mengikutsertakan taraf kesukaran dan daya diskriminasi menggunakan pendekatan Item Response Theory (IRT), indeks ketepatan model dan struktur pengukuran sebagai bukti validitas konstruk. Temuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Tes PAPs secara umum tergolong memiliki kesetaraan pada parameter taraf kesukaran butir, daya diskriminasi butir dan tingkat ketepatan butir ketika disajikan dalam bentuk CBT dan PPT. Sehingga, Tes PAPs ke depannya dapat disajikan dalam kedua bentuk tersebut secara bergantian.

Keywords

computer-based test; paper and pencil test; PAPs; properti psikometri

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.22146/gamajop.51852

References

Alagumalai, S., & Curtis, D. D. (2005). Classical test theory. In S. Alagumalai, D.D. Curtis, & N. Hungi (Eds.), Applied Rasch measurement: A book of exemplars: Papers in honour of John P. Keeves (hal.1-14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Azwar, S. (2016). Konstruksi tes kemampuan kognitif (Edisi pertama). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Aşkar, P., Altun, A., Cangöz, B., Çevik, V., Kaya, G., & Türksoy, H. (2012). A comparison of paper-and-pencil and computerized forms of line orientation and enhanced cued recall tests. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 383–396. doi: 10.2466/03.22.PR0.110.2.383-396

Bacharach, V. R., & Furr, R. M. (2007). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2017). The basics of item response theory using R. Springer International Publishing.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences (Edisi ketiga). New York: Routledge.

Chen, S.-Y., & Lei, P.-W. (2005). Controlling item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(3), 204–217. doi: 10.1177/0146621604271495

Bugbee Jr., A. C. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-299. doi: 10.1080/08886504.1996.10782166

Choi, I.-C., Kim, K. S., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295–320. doi: 10.1191/0265532203lt258oa

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Cole, D. A., Perkins, C. E., & Zelkowitz, R. L. (2015). Impact of homogeneous and heterogeneous parceling strategies when latent variables represent multidimensional constructs. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 164–174. doi: 10.1037/met0000047

Flowers, C., Kim, D.-H., Lewis, P., & Davis, V. C. (2011). A comparison of computer-based testing and pencil-and-paper testing for students with a read-aloud accommodation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/016264341102600102

Furr, M. R., & Bacharach, V. R. (2013). Psychometric: An introduction (Edisi kedua). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publisher.

Ghazali, I. (2017). Model persamaan struktural dengan AMOS 24: Update Bayesian SEM (Edisi ketujuh). Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Ginty, A. T. (2013). Psychometric Properties. In M. Gellman & R. J. Turner, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. New York, NY: Springer.

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item response theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Hardcastle, J., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2017). Validating an assessment for tracking students’ growth in understanding of energy from elementary school to high school Joseph. NARST Annual International Conference (hal. 1–10). San Antonio, TX, April.

Hosseini, M., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Baghdarnia, M. (2014). Comparability of test results of computer based tests (CBT) and paper and pencil tests (PPT) among English language learners in Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 659–667. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.465

Janssen, G., Meier, V., & Trace, J. (2014). Classical test theory and item response theory. Two understandings of one high-stakes performance exam. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(2), 167–184. doi: 10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2014.2.a03

Keller, L. A, Swaminathan, H., & Sireci, S. G. (2003). Education evaluating scoring procedures for context-dependent item sets 1. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(3), 207–222. doi: 10.1207/S15324818AME1603

Leong, F. T. (2008). Encyclopedia of counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Inc.

Linacre, J. M. (2011). A User’s guide to winstep minsitep Rasch-model computer program. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com.

Luecht, R. M. (2005). Some useful cost-benefit criteria for evaluating computer-based test delivery models and systems. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 7(2), 1-35.

Maul, A. (2013). Method effects and the meaning of measurement. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00169

Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449–458. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.449

Partchev, I. (2009). irtoys: A collection of functions related to item Response Theory (IRT). R package version 0.2.1. Diakses melalui https://CRAN.R-projects.org/package=irtoys

Parshall, C. G., Harmes, J. C., Davey, T., & Pashley, P. (2009). Innovative items for computerized testing. In W.J. van der Linden & C.A.W. Glas (Eds.) Elements of adaptive testing. statistical for social and behavior sciences. New York, NY: Springer

Piaw, C. Y. (2012). Replacing paper-based testing with computer-based testing in assessment: Are we doing wrong? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 655–664. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.077

Pommerich, M. (2004). Developing computerized versions of paper-and-pencil tests: Mode effects for passage-based tests. The Journal of Technology Learning a-nd Assessment, 2(6), 1–44.

Rizopoulos, D. (2007). ltm: An R Package for latent variable modeling and item response analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1-25. doi: 10.18637/jss.v017.i05

Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2013). Aplikasi Model Rasch untuk penelitian ilmu-ilmu sosial. Cimahi: Trim Komunikata Publishing House.

Tate, R. (2003). A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of responses to test items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(3), 159–203. doi: 10.1177/0146621603252327

The National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). Main NAEP assessments. Diakses pada 15 Oktober 2019 melalui https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/assessments/

Vrabel, M. (2004). Computerized versus paper-and-pencil testing methods for a nursing certification examination: A Review of the literature. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 22(2), 94-98. doi: 10.1097/00024665-200403000-00010

Widhiarso, W., & Haryanta. (2015). Examining method effect of synonym and antonym test in verbal abilities measure. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 419–431. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v11i3.865

Williamson, D. M., Mislevy, R. J., & Bejar, I. I. (2006). Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer-based testing. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

Wright, B. D., & Mok, M. M. (2004). An overview of the family of Rasch measurement models. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds), Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models, and applications (hal. 1-24). Minnesota: Jam Press.

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.