Analysis of Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency of Multiple Choice Questions of Speech Sounds of English

Abstract

The prime purpose of this research article is to analyze 20 multiple choice questions (MCQs) regarding the consonant and vowel sounds of English having asked to the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) first year major English students in their achievement examination conducted at Makawanpur Multiple Campus, Hetauda, Nepal in 2020. The researcher employed 33% students from the group of high achievers from the top and 33% students from the group of low achievers from the bottom by including 18 students from the population of 27 students. Each item was analyzed for difficulty index (DIF I), discrimination index (DI), and distractor effectiveness (DE). 3 (15%) questions fell in the range of the difficulty index of (0.20 – 0.39). 14 (70%) questions fell in the range of the difficulty index of (0.40 – 0.59). 2 (10%) questions fell in the range of the difficulty index of (0.60 – 0.79). 1 (5%) Question fell in the range of the difficulty index of (0.80 – 0.89). 2 (10%) questions lay in the discrimination index of (0.20-0.29) and 18 (90%) questions lay in the discrimination index of 5 (25%) questions had one non-functional distractor, whereas 15 (75%) questions had zero nun-functional distractor. Out of 60 distractors, 5 (8.34%) distractors were non-functional and 55 (91.66%) distractors were functional. It was found that most of the multiple choice questions were reliable and valid.

The Malay-Version Knowledge, Risk Perception, Attitude and Practice Questionnaire on Heatwaves: Development and Construct Validation

“…The p was calculated based on the formula by Gronlund and Linn (1990) [ 34 ]. Items with p value < 0.2 and >0.9 were removed [ 35 ].…”

“…The DI was calculated to describe the ability of an item to distinguish between high and low scores (i.e., scores of the upper and lower 27% of respondents after their obtained scores had been ranked in descending order, respectively) [ 34 ]. Items with DI < 0.2 were removed [ 35 , 36 ]. Knowledge construct reliability was measured using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability index (pKR20) [ 37 ].…”

Video Lessons via YouTube Channel as Mathematics Interventions in Modular Distance Learning

“…Also, there were 4 items with 66.66% and 26 items with 100% for distractor efficiency. The quality of test materials administered to the students can be established through item analysis (Sharma, 2021). Moreover, a fiveitem open-ended survey questionnaire and five-item interview questions were administered to elicit qualitative data regarding the effect of watching video lessons on students' academic performance in mathematics and suggestions for improvement.…”

Development and Validation of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Questionnaire: Toward Safe Working in Confined Spaces

“…A lower difficulty level reflected that the easy questions could be tested among the respondents as the participants had a higher ability to answer all tested items [52]. It is strongly recommended that the simplest questions be eliminated in the section [53]. It was also found that item K4 did not fit the 2-PL IRT model due to its item-fit statistics.…”