Perbandingan Properti Psikometri antara Tes PAPs Berbentuk Computer-Based dan Paper and Pencil Test
Abstract
Keywords
DOI: 10.22146/gamajop.51852
References
Alagumalai, S., & Curtis, D. D. (2005). Classical test theory. In S. Alagumalai, D.D. Curtis, & N. Hungi (Eds.), Applied Rasch measurement: A book of exemplars: Papers in honour of John P. Keeves (hal.1-14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Azwar, S. (2016). Konstruksi tes kemampuan kognitif (Edisi pertama). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Aşkar, P., Altun, A., Cangöz, B., Çevik, V., Kaya, G., & Türksoy, H. (2012). A comparison of paper-and-pencil and computerized forms of line orientation and enhanced cued recall tests. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 383–396. doi: 10.2466/03.22.PR0.110.2.383-396
Bacharach, V. R., & Furr, R. M. (2007). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2017). The basics of item response theory using R. Springer International Publishing.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences (Edisi ketiga). New York: Routledge.
Chen, S.-Y., & Lei, P.-W. (2005). Controlling item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(3), 204–217. doi: 10.1177/0146621604271495
Bugbee Jr., A. C. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-299. doi: 10.1080/08886504.1996.10782166
Choi, I.-C., Kim, K. S., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295–320. doi: 10.1191/0265532203lt258oa
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Cole, D. A., Perkins, C. E., & Zelkowitz, R. L. (2015). Impact of homogeneous and heterogeneous parceling strategies when latent variables represent multidimensional constructs. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 164–174. doi: 10.1037/met0000047
Flowers, C., Kim, D.-H., Lewis, P., & Davis, V. C. (2011). A comparison of computer-based testing and pencil-and-paper testing for students with a read-aloud accommodation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/016264341102600102
Furr, M. R., & Bacharach, V. R. (2013). Psychometric: An introduction (Edisi kedua). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publisher.
Ghazali, I. (2017). Model persamaan struktural dengan AMOS 24: Update Bayesian SEM (Edisi ketujuh). Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Ginty, A. T. (2013). Psychometric Properties. In M. Gellman & R. J. Turner, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. New York, NY: Springer.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item response theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hardcastle, J., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2017). Validating an assessment for tracking students’ growth in understanding of energy from elementary school to high school Joseph. NARST Annual International Conference (hal. 1–10). San Antonio, TX, April.
Hosseini, M., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Baghdarnia, M. (2014). Comparability of test results of computer based tests (CBT) and paper and pencil tests (PPT) among English language learners in Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 659–667. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.465
Janssen, G., Meier, V., & Trace, J. (2014). Classical test theory and item response theory. Two understandings of one high-stakes performance exam. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(2), 167–184. doi: 10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2014.2.a03
Keller, L. A, Swaminathan, H., & Sireci, S. G. (2003). Education evaluating scoring procedures for context-dependent item sets 1. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(3), 207–222. doi: 10.1207/S15324818AME1603
Leong, F. T. (2008). Encyclopedia of counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Inc.
Linacre, J. M. (2011). A User’s guide to winstep minsitep Rasch-model computer program. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com.
Luecht, R. M. (2005). Some useful cost-benefit criteria for evaluating computer-based test delivery models and systems. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 7(2), 1-35.
Maul, A. (2013). Method effects and the meaning of measurement. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00169
Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449–458. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.449
Partchev, I. (2009). irtoys: A collection of functions related to item Response Theory (IRT). R package version 0.2.1. Diakses melalui https://CRAN.R-projects.org/package=irtoys
Parshall, C. G., Harmes, J. C., Davey, T., & Pashley, P. (2009). Innovative items for computerized testing. In W.J. van der Linden & C.A.W. Glas (Eds.) Elements of adaptive testing. statistical for social and behavior sciences. New York, NY: Springer
Piaw, C. Y. (2012). Replacing paper-based testing with computer-based testing in assessment: Are we doing wrong? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 655–664. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.077
Pommerich, M. (2004). Developing computerized versions of paper-and-pencil tests: Mode effects for passage-based tests. The Journal of Technology Learning a-nd Assessment, 2(6), 1–44.
Rizopoulos, D. (2007). ltm: An R Package for latent variable modeling and item response analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1-25. doi: 10.18637/jss.v017.i05
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2013). Aplikasi Model Rasch untuk penelitian ilmu-ilmu sosial. Cimahi: Trim Komunikata Publishing House.
Tate, R. (2003). A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of responses to test items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(3), 159–203. doi: 10.1177/0146621603252327
The National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). Main NAEP assessments. Diakses pada 15 Oktober 2019 melalui https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/assessments/
Vrabel, M. (2004). Computerized versus paper-and-pencil testing methods for a nursing certification examination: A Review of the literature. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 22(2), 94-98. doi: 10.1097/00024665-200403000-00010
Widhiarso, W., & Haryanta. (2015). Examining method effect of synonym and antonym test in verbal abilities measure. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 419–431. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v11i3.865
Williamson, D. M., Mislevy, R. J., & Bejar, I. I. (2006). Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer-based testing. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
Wright, B. D., & Mok, M. M. (2004). An overview of the family of Rasch measurement models. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds), Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models, and applications (hal. 1-24). Minnesota: Jam Press.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Gadjah Mada Journal of Psychology (GamaJoP)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.