DEVELOVING QUANTITATIVE LITERACY ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR INDONESIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
Keywords:
Quantitative Literacy, Secondary SchoolAbstract
Quantitative literacy ability is an important skill in the digital era 4.0. This research aims to develop a quantitative literacy instrument for class VII students that is valid, reliable, free from Differential Item Functioning (DIF), and capable of measuring abilities accurately. The development method uses a 4D model (Define, Design, Develop, Disseminate), limited to the Develop stage. The instrument consists of 36 questions based on six dimensions of quantitative literacy (interpretation, representation, calculation, assumptions, analysis, communication) which are validated by experts with scores CVI 0.94. Trials were carried out on 220 class VII students, and analysis using the Rasch Model showed high reliability (item reliability 0.99; person reliability 0.85) and good precision (standard error 0.25 logit). The distribution of difficulty levels of questions is in line with average to medium student abilities, although the coverage of extreme abilities needs to be improved. The instrument is considered valid, reliable and precise, but it is recommended to add questions with a higher level of difficulty and review questions that are too easy or difficult to make them more representative.
References
Aryadoust, Vahid. "A review of comprehension subskills: A scientometrics perspective." System 88 (2020): 102180.
Boone, W. J., & Noltemeyer, A. (2017). Rasch analysis: A primer for school psychology researchers and
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., Yale, M. S., Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Person reliability, item reliability, and more. Rasch analysis in the human sciences, 217-234.
Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2017). Critical values for Yen’s Q 3: Identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Applied psychological measurement, 41(3), 178-194.
Fisher, D. G., Reynolds, G. L., Jaffe, A., & Johnson, M. E. (2007). Reliability, sensitivity and specificity of self-report of HIV test results. AIDS care, 19(5), 692-696.
Goodwin, L. D., & Leech, N. L. (2003). The meaning of validity in the new standards for educational and psychological testing: Implications for measurement courses. Measurement and evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(3), 181-191.
Huberty, J., Vener, J., Gao, Y., Matthews, J. L., Ransdell, L., & Elavsky, S. (2013). Developing an instrument to measure physical activity related self-worth in women : Rasch analysis of the Women ’ s Physical Activity Self-Worth Inventory. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 14(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.07.009
Kaliski, P. K., Wind, S. A., Engelhard, G., Morgan, D. L., Plake, B. S., & Reshetar, R. A. (2013). Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412468448
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research, 35(6), 382-386.
Mardapi, D., 2008, Teknik Penyusunan Instrumen Tes dan Non Tes. Yogyakarta : Mitra Cendikia Offse
Naga, Dali Santun,. (2013). Teori Sekor pada Pengukuran Mental.Jakarta: PT. Nagarani Citrayasa.
Nitko, J. A. (1996). Educational Assessment of Student. New Jersey: Prentise-Hall.
OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f7b08b9-en
O'Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2011). The measurement of classroom management self‐efficacy: a review of measurement instrument development and influences. Educational Psychology, 31(3), 261-299.
Poerwanti, E. (2008). Standar penilaian badan standar nasional pendidikan (bsnp).
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 29(5), 489-497. practitioners. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1416898. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1416898.
Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164671
Reckase, M. D., & Reckase, M. D. (2009). Unidimensional item response theory models. Multidimensional item response theory, 11-55.
Rempusheski, V. F., & O'Hara, C. T. (2005). Psychometric properties of the grandparent perceptions of family scale (GPFS). Nursing Research, 54(5), 363-371.
Steen, L. A. (2001). Mathematics and numeracy: Two literacies, one language. The mathematics educator, 6(1), 10-16.
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi pemodelan rasch pada assessment pendidikan. Trim komunikata.
Thiagarajan, Sivasailam, dkk. (1974). Instructional Development for Training Teachers of Exceptional Children. Washinton DC: National Center for Improvement Educational System.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Khaerun Nisa, Siska Merrydian, Awaluddin Tjalla, Iva Sarifah

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