Pengaruh Jumlah Alternatif Jawaban dan Teknik Penskoran terhadap Reliabilitas Tes

Yoga Budi Bhakti(1*)

(1) Universitas Indraprasta PGRI
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This study aimed to determine the effect of the number of alternative answers
and scoring techniques to reliability test. Forms of this test includes multiple choice test three answer choice and multiple choice test four answer choices with penalty scoring techniques (Punishment Score) and scoring techniques compensation (Reward Score). The method uses the experiment, while the designused istreatment bylevel 2 x 2. Research hypotheses were tested using two way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The result concluded that: (1) reliability tests with three multiple choice answer options is higher than the multiple choice test four answer choices, (2) reliability tests with scoring techniques penalty higher than the reliability of the technique of scoring compensation,
and (3) No interaction between the number of alternative answers to the scoring
technique. The results of this study can be considered for the teacher to give test using a form of multiple choice test three answer choice and multiple choice test four answer choices test scoring with a penalty techniques.

Keywords : reliability, scoring techniques, alternative answers.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Anastasi, Anne. 1998. Psychological Testing. New York : Mac Millan Publishing Company.

Azwar, Saifuddin. 2006. Reliabilitas dan Validitas. Yogyakarta : Pustaka Pelajar.

Cangelosi, James S. 1990. Evaluating Classroon Instruction. New York : Publishing Group.

Crocker, L. and Algina, J. 1986. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York : Holt, Reinhart dan Wiston Inc.

Djaali dan Pudji Muljono. 2004. Pengukuran dalam Bidang Pendidikan. Jakarta : Program Pascasarjana UNJ.

Kubiszyn, Tom and Borich, Gary. 2007. Educational Testing and Measurement: Classroom Aplication and Practice. United States : John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Mahrens, W.A. andI Lehmann, J. 1991. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Physchology. New York : Brace College Publisher.

McMillan, James H. 2008. Assesment Essentials for Standard-Based Education. California: Corwin Press.

Nitko, J. Anthony. 1996. Educational Assessment of Student. New Jersey : Prentise-Hall, Inc.

Popham, W. James. 1995. Classroom Assesment: What Teachers Need to Know. California : Allyn and Bacon.

Sukardi. 2008. Evaluasi Pendidikan: Prinsip dan Operasionalnya. Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.

Surapranata, Sumarna. 2004. Analisis, Validitas, Reliabilitas dan Interpretasi Hasil Tes. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Surapranata, Sumarna. 2004. Panduan Penulisan Tes Tertulis. Bandung : PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Wiersma, William dan Jurs, Stephen G. 1990. Educational Measurement and Testing. Boston: Allyn and Boston.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30998/formatif.v5i1.168

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2015 Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA

Publisher:
Institute for Research and Community Services
(LPPM) Universitas Indraprasta PGRI

Kampus A Building 3, 2nd Floor | Jl. Nangka No. 58 C (TB. Simatupang), Kel. Tanjung Barat, Kec. Jagakarsa, Jakarta Selatan 12530, Jakarta, Indonesia. 


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

View My Stats