Ứng dụng lí thuyết ứng đáp câu hỏi trong phân tích đề thi đánh giá năng lực kiểm định viên kiểm định chất lượng giáo dục đại học
Tóm tắt
Objective multiple-choice tests are among the most used assessment formats for evaluating learners’ academic achievement and competencies upon completion of professional training programmes. However, to ensure the scientific rigor and reliability of assessment results, such tests need to be analysed using appropriate psychometric methods. This study employs Item Response Theory, specifically the Rasch model, to analyse a competency assessment test administered to learners after completing the accreditor's training program. The analysis yielded a Separation Reliability coefficient of 0,985. Candidates’ scores ranged from 32,5 to 87,5 on a 100-point scale; the mean score was 66,03, with a standard deviation of 11,15; and 63,93% of candidates scored above the sample mean. Based on item difficulty, fit estimates and other indices based on the Rasch model, the 40 items were classified into four groups corresponding to recommendations on whether to retain, revise, or remove them. Based on the research findings, the article recommends further improvement of the process of developing, reviewing, piloting, and analysing competency assessment tests for learners after professional training in educational accreditation. These improvements aim to enhance test quality, refine the competency assessment instrument for learners, and contribute to strengthening the objectivity, reliability, and validity of assessment practices in professional training for educational accreditation.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Amua-Sekyi, E. T. (2016). Assessment, Student Learning and Classroom Practice: A Review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(21), 1-6.
Bộ GD-ĐT (2022). Thông tư số 14/2022/TT- BGDĐT ngày 10/10/2022 quy định về Kiểm định viên giáo dục đại học và cao đẳng sư phạm.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Butler, A. C. (2018). Multiple-choice testing in education: Are the best practices for assessment also good for learning?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 323-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.07.002
Clauser, B. E., Margolis, M. J., & Case, S. M. (2006). Testing for licensure and certification in the professions. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 701-731). Praeger Publishers.
Dell, K. A., & Wantuch, G. A. (2017). How-to-guide for writing multiple choice questions for the pharmacy instructor. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.036
Downing, S. M. (2005). The effects of violating standard item writing principles on tests and students: the consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 133-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5
Frey, B. B., Petersen, S., Edwards, L. M., Pedrotti, J. T., & Peyton, V. (2005). Item-writing rules: Collective wisdom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 357-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.008
Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q., & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1082-1116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317726529
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Routledge.
Tải xuống
Đã Xuất bản
Cách trích dẫn
Số
Chuyên mục
Giấy phép
Bản quyền (c) 2026 Tạp chí Giáo dục
Tác phẩm này được cấp phép theo Ghi nhận tác giả của Creative Commons Giấy phép quốc tế 4.0 .
