Qualitative and Quantitative Item Analysis of Essay Test Instruments in a Learning Planning and Microteaching Course

Ranu Iskandar; Putri Khoirin Nashiroh; Muhammad Khumaedi

doi:10.58421/misro.v5i2.1508

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v5i2.1508

Authors

Ranu Iskandar Universitas Negeri Semarang
Putri Khoirin Nashiroh Universitas Negeri Semarang
Muhammad Khumaedi Universitas Negeri Semarang

Keywords:

Difficulty index, Discrimination index, Item quality analysis, Learning planning and microteaching, Reliability, Validity

Abstract

This study aimed to conduct qualitative and quantitative analyses of essay test instruments used in the daily assessment of the Learning Planning and Microteaching course. This research employed a descriptive method with an item analysis approach. The subjects of this study were fifth-semester students of the Automotive Engineering Education Study Program, while the object of the study consisted of 15 essay items used in the daily assessment of the Learning Planning and Microteaching course. The study was conducted on September 25, 2025, involving 20 student respondents. Qualitative analysis of the test instrument was carried out by an expert to detect and correct weaknesses in the material, construction, and language aspects so that the instrument is valid in content and objective before being used. Quantitative analysis of test instruments is the process of testing the quality of test instrument items to determine item discrimination, Level of difficulty, and external validity reliability. The results showed that, based on the qualitative analysis, all items met the criteria for material, construction, and language aspects. However, the quantitative analysis, including difficulty index, discrimination index, validity, and reliability, indicated that several items required revision. Items 11 and 12 need revision because they showed weaknesses in validity, although their difficulty and discrimination indices were still acceptable. Meanwhile, items 2, 5, 8, 14, and 15 require more substantial revision or replacement because they have poor discrimination power. Overall, the essay test instrument can be considered moderately feasible, but it still requires improvement before being used as a strong formative assessment instrument.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Universitas Negeri Semarang, “Pendidikan Teknik Otomotif: Kurikulum.” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://unnes.ac.id/ft/id/pto-kurikulum/

C. Yuliana et al., Microteaching: Strategi Microteaching dalam Pembelajaran Efektif. KOta Jambi: PT. Sonpedia Publishing Indonesia, 2025.

J. O’Flaherty, R. Lenihan, A. M. Young, and O. McCormack, “Developing Micro-Teaching with a Focus on Core Practices: The Use of Approximations of Practice,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 35, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/1/35

M. Barnard, E. Whitt, and S. McDonald, “Learning objectives and their effects on learning and assessment preparation: insights from an undergraduate psychology course,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 673–684, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2020.1822281

R. Iskandar, “Assessing the Digital Literacy Profile of Productive Automotive Engineering Teacher Candidate Students,” J. Educ. Teach., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 60–69, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://jet.or.id/index.php/jet/article/view/331

I. Magdalena, H. N. Fauzi, and R. Putri, “Pentingnya evaluasi dalam pembelajaran dan akibat memanipulasinya,” Bintang, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 244–257, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal.stitpn.ac.id/index.php/bintang/article/view/986

T. Siregar, Micro Teaching. Kabupaten Cirebon: Goresan Pena, 2025.

R. Lasso, “A Blueprint for Using Assessments to Achieve Learning Outcomes and Improve Students’ Learning,” SSRN, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3406301

I. Đerić, I. Elezović, and F. Brese, “Teachers, Teaching and Student Achievement,” in Dinaric Perspectives on TIMSS 2019. IEA Research for Education, B. Japelj Pavešić, P. Koršňáková, and S. Meinck, Eds., Cham: Springer, 2022, pp. 151–174. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-85802-5_7

S. Suryana, Pembelajaran Mikro. Sukoharjio: Tahta Media Group, 2024.

R. Iskandar, Pedoman Penilaian Hasil Belajar Peserta Didik SMK Kompetensi Keahlian Teknik Kendaraan Ringan pada Mata Pelajaran Pemeliharaan Sasis Dan Pemindah Tenaga Kendaraan Ringan. Sukabumi: CV Jejak (Jejak Publisher), 2019.

C. Poluakan and A. L. . Tilaar, “Hots dan lots: realiti atau ilusi?,” J. Eval. Dan Pembelajaran, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 88–94, 2020, doi: 10.52647/jep.v2i1.16.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Penilaian hasil belajar: Pendidikan dan pelatihan teknis kegiatan belajar mengajar bagi pamong belajar. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan & Kebudayaan, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://repositori.kemendikdasmen.go.id/17902/1/03.15 Modul Pelatihan TFM bagi Pamong Belajar 05. Penilaian Hasil Belajar.pdf

B. Quah, L. Zheng, T. J. H. Sng, C. W. Yong, and I. Islam, “Reliability of ChatGPT in automated essay scoring for dental undergraduate examinations,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 24, no. 1, p. 962, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-024-05881-6

Pusat Penilaian Pendidikan, Panduan Penilaian Tes Tertulis. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://repositori.kemdikbud.go.id/18344/1/PANDUAN PENILAIAN TERTULIS 2019.pdf

P. Kunjappagounder, S. K. Doddaiah, P. N. Basavanna, and D. Bhat, “Relationship between Difficulty and Discrimination Indices of Essay Questions in for Mative Assessment,” J. Anat. Soc. India, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 239–243, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://journals.lww.com/joai/fulltext/2021/70040/relationship_between_difficulty_and_discrimination.9.aspx

A. Chauhan, F. Khaliq, and K. R. Nayak, “Assessing Quality of Scenario-Based Multiple-Choice Questions in Physiology: Faculty-Generated vs. ChatGPT-Generated Questions among Phase I Medical Students,” Int J Artif Intell Educ, vol. 35, pp. 2315–2344, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40593-025-00471-z

N. F. Adkha, P. Sudira, and R. Iskandar, “The mindfulness aspects in the teaching of culinary art in vocational high school,” J. Pendidik. Vokasi, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 155–170, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jpv/article/view/38402

“The Influence of Social Media Usage on the Authority of Religious Leaders Among Bina Nusantara University Students, Alam Sutera, Tangerang,” in Proceedings of TEEM 2024, Singapore: Springer, 2025, pp. 813–820. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-96-5658-5_80

T. Gnambs, “A Brief Note on the Standard Error of the Pearson Correlation,” Collabra Psychol., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 87615, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/9/1/87615/197169

C. G. Forero, “Cronbach’s Alpha,” Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 2024. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_622

X. Zhang et al., “Reliability and Validity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator in 5 European Countries,” J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 772-779.e6, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861020302784

I. Bin Sa’id et al., KONSEP PENELITIAN KUANTITATIF. Kota Padang: CV. PUSTAKA INSPIRASI MINANG, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://opac.upgripnk.ac.id/index.php?p=fstream-pdf&fid=190&bid=8442

A. R. Artino, J. S. La Rochelle, K. J. Dezee, and H. Gehlbach, “Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87,” Med. Teach., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 463–474, 2014, [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814

D. A. Cook and T. J. Beckman, “Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application,” Am J Med, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 166.e7–16, 2006, [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002934305010375

W. Mahjabeen et al., “Difficulty Index, Discrimination Index and Distractor Efficiency in Multiple Choice Questions,” Ann. PIMS, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 310–315, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://www.apims.net/apims/article/view/9/

G. T. L. Brown, E. R. Peterson, and E. S. Yao, “Evaluating the quality of higher education instructor-constructed multiple-choice tests: Impact on student grades,” Front. Educ., vol. 2, p. 24, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2017.00024/full

M. Karlström and K. Hamza, “Preservice science teachers’ opportunities for learning through reflection when planning a microteaching unit,” J. Sci. Teacher Educ., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 44–62, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1531345

S. Ledger and J. Fischetti, “Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the classroom,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 37–54, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/4561

Khairunnisa, A. H. Pulungan, and R. Husein, “Validity And Reliability Of The English Summative Test For Second Semester Of The Fifth Grade In Academic Year 2019/2020,” Int. J. Educ. Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 92–101, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://ijersc.org/index.php/go/article/view/21/

K. Quaigrain and A. K. Arhin, “Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation,” Cogent Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1301013, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1301013

M. Tavakol and R. Dennick, “Post-examination analysis of objective tests,” Med. Teach., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 447–458, 2011, [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/0142159X.2011.564682

S. Sabri, “Item analysis of student comprehensive test for research in teaching beginner string ensemble using model-based teaching among music students in public universities,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 1–14, 2013, [Online]. Available: https://www.ijern.com/journal/December-2013/28.pdf

S. M. Downing, “Validity: On meaningful interpretation of assessment data,” Med. Educ., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 830–837, 2003, [Online]. Available: https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x

D. F. McCaffrey, J. M. Casabianca, K. L. Ricker-Pedley, R. R. Lawless, and C. Wendler, Best Practices for Constructed-Response Scoring. Princeton: ETS, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ets2.12358

J. Trace, V. Meier, and G. Janssen, “‘I can see that’: Developing shared rubric category interpretations through score negotiation,” Assess. Writ., vol. 30, pp. 32–43, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1075293516300435

Y. D. Sangary, M. H. Asayesh, A. Asgharzadeh, and Z. Naghsh, “Psychometric of the Ferrer-Urbina multidimensional scale of sexual self concept (MSSSC) in the Iranian population,” BMC Psychol., vol. 14, p. 229, 2026, [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40359-025-03883-7

D. G. Bonett, “Sample Size Requirements for Testing and Estimating Coefficient Alpha,” J. Educ. Behav. Stat., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 335–340, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986027004335

S. N. Ikhsaniyah, A. D. Kurnia, M. Zuroida, V. Pratiwi, and L. Hakim, “Analisis butir soal perpajakan pph pasal 21 menggunakan software anates pada pendekatan teori tes klasik,” PEKA, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 77–88, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://journal.uir.ac.id/index.php/Peka/article/view/19917

O. R. Sabela, D. Krisdayanty, A. Z. Taqqiyah, L. Hakim, and V. Pratiwi, “Analisis Butir Soal HOTS Elemen Dokumen Berbasis Digital (FASE E) Menggunakan Program Anates,” Educ. Achievment J. Sci. Res., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 251–262, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://pusdikrapublishing.com/index.php/jsr/article/view/2328