Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

# 1 The Use of the QUEST Program The QUEST program is a computer package developed by Adams and Khoo (1993)

of the Australian Council for Educational Research. It was developed to analyse test and questionnaire data based on the Rasch or one parameter model as well as classical test theory. Adams and Khoo (1993, p. 1) claim that Quest can be used to construct and validate variables based on both dichotomous and polychotomous observations. The features of the QUEST program that are used in this study are discussed in the following section. Item Analysis Using Classical Test Theory Item analysis is an important step to be undertaken in examining achievement test data such as mathematics and science achievement used in this study before any other analyses are carried out. Item analysis in the QUEST program (using itanal command line) provides information about: Count, Percent (%), Point Biserial Correlation, p-value, Mean Ability, Item Thresholds, and Infit Mean Square. Count is the number of students responding to each alternative given in the tests. Percent (%) is the percentage of the number of student responding to each alternative in the tests. This output is also used as an index to determine the difficulty level of an item using classical test theory. In classical test theory, item difficulty is defined as the proportion of students who answered the item correctly. Point Biserial Correlation is produced from the item analysis using classical test theory which provides the product moment correlation between responses to a particular item and the total score, and is employed as an index to examine item discrimination. Item discrimination is defined as an indicator of the ability of an item to discriminate between the high performing group of students
Ramon Mohandas

2 and the low performing group of students. A high discrimination index for an item indicates that the group of students who answered the item correctly are those with the highest performance, indicated by their Mean Ability in the output (see below), or as Lietz (1995, p. 166) put it, there is a strong link between the item and the scale. A discrimination index close to zero or with a negative sign indicates that there is no clear pattern of linkage between the item and the scale. Thorndike (1982, p. 72) has reported that if the distribution in the total group is normal, the point biserial can never go beyond 0.80, while Lietz (1995) contends that the critical low value for the point biserial coefficient should be set to 0.20. This means that a satisfactory point biserial coefficient for an item should be within the range of 0.20 to 0.80. P-value is used as an index to indicate the significance level of the point biserial correlation. Mean Ability is the estimated performance of the group of students who responded to the test. The estimate of the mean ability is undertaken applying the Rasch procedure. Item Threshold is the difficulty level of an item using the Rasch model. In the Rasch model, also known as the one-parameter logistic model, Gustafsson (1979, p. 3) has argued that the probability of a correct answer to an item is a function of two parameters, one representing the difficulty of the item and one representing the ability of the person. Adams and Khoo (1993, p. 86) state that a threshold for an item is the ability level that is required for an individual to have a 50 per cent chance of passing. Infit mean square is the fit statistics in the Rasch procedure which can be used, as Adams and Khoo (1993, p. 86) claim, to consider the compatibility of the model and the data. The output of the item analysis is very helpful in order to examine the properties of each item in a test. In a multiple-choice test, like the one used in this study, the point biserial coefficient is widely used for this purpose. For example, if the point biserial coefficient for an item is close to zero or with a negative sign, there might be something wrong with the item. The first
Ramon Mohandas

3 possibility is that the key entered for the item in the QUEST command line is wrong, or there is no correct answer among the options given in the item, or the item is too difficult. Thus even the most able group of students cannot give the right answer to the question, or perhaps there are other problems related to the instructions associated with the item. Examples for the output of item analysis for the QUEST program are presented in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. Figure 7.1 gives examples of good and poor discrimination indices for mathematics items, and Figure 7.2 provides examples of good and poor discrimination indices for science items. Data in Figure 7.1 indicate that the discrimination index for Item 7 is 0.36, which is satisfactory, while the discrimination index for Item 74 is -0.03, which is very poor. Further examination of the data indicate that the correct answer for Item 7 is Category 4 (Option d), indicated by a star sign (4*), while the correct answer for Item 74 is Category 1 (Option a), indicated by a star sign (1*). For Item 7, Category 4 as the correct answer is chosen by 39.6 per cent of the group, with the mean ability of -0.22, which is the highest ability compared to other groups who answered Category 1, 2, 3, 5, or 0 (Category 0 in these data means no response, scored as wrong; category missing mean that there are no data for this category since the data are arranged for concurrent equating and these data are ignored in the analysis).

Ramon Mohandas

4
CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item Analysis Results for Observed Responses 1/ 7/98 13:40 all on math (N =7864 L =125 Probability Level= .50) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..................................................................................... Item 7: item 7 0 29 .7 -.05 .001 -1.03 1 662 17.0 -.13 .000 -.80 1 2 259 6.7 -.10 .000 -.88 Infit MNSQ = Disc = 3 1396 35.9 -.21 .000 -.80 .99 .36 4* 1541 39.6 .36 .000 -.22 5 4 .1 .00 .430 -.52 missing 3973

Categories Count Percent (%) Pt-Biserial p-value Mean Ability Step Labels

-.54

Thresholds -.12 Error .03 ..................................................................................... Item 74: item 74 0 36 1.2 -.05 .003 -1.00 1* 1392 47.3 -.03 .060 -.60 1 2 594 20.2 -.02 .132 -.62 Infit MNSQ = 1.27 Disc = -.03 3 285 9.7 -.07 .000 -.78 4 638 21.7 .12 .000 -.39 5 0 .0 NA NA NA missing 4919

Categories Count Percent (%) Pt-Biserial p-value Mean Ability Step Labels

-.55

Thresholds -.47 Error .04 ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... Mean test score Standard deviation Internal Consistency 12.64 5.16 .62

The individual item statistics are calculated using all available data. The overall mean, standard deviation and internal consistency indices assume that missing responses are incorrect. They should only be considered useful when there is a limited amount of missing data. ================================================================================ Note: Category 0 indicates item not attempted by students Category missing involves the number of students on the concurrent equating file who were not assigned to attempt the item.

## Figure 7.1: Analysis for Mathematics Items Numbers 7 and 74

Ramon Mohandas

CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item Analysis Results for Observed Responses 1/ 7/98 13:39 all on science (N =7864 L =101 Probability Level= .50) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..................................................................................... Item 1: item 1 0 33 .8 -.05 .001 -.69 1 1041 26.8 -.10 .000 -.41 1 2 244 6.3 -.12 .000 -.62 Infit MNSQ = 1.03 Disc = .24 3* 2345 60.3 .24 .000 -.16 4 227 5.8 -.18 .000 -.79 5 1 .0 .00 .468 -.48 missing 3973

Categories Count Percent (%) Pt-Biserial p-value Mean Ability Step Labels

-.31

Thresholds -.75 Error .03 ........................................................................................ ............................................ Item 82: item 82 0 31 1.0 -.02 .156 -.40 1 637 21.4 .06 .000 -.22 1 2 781 26.3 -.04 .017 -.35 Infit MNSQ = 1.20 Disc = -.07 3 758 25.5 .05 .004 -.24 4* 763 25.7 -.07 .000 -.36 5 1 .0 -.03 .041 -1.38 missing 4893

Categories Count Percent (%) Pt-Biserial p-value Mean Ability Step Labels

-.31

Thresholds .85 Error .04 ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... Mean test score Standard deviation Internal Consistency 13.89 4.17 .42

The individual item statistics are calculated using all available data. The overall mean, standard deviation and internal consistency indices assume that missing responses are incorrect. They should only be considered useful when there is a limited amount of missing data. ================================================================================ Notes: Category 0 indicates item not attempted by students Category 5 indicates an error in coding and recording data because there were only four options for these items Category missing involves the number of students on the concurrent equating file who were not assigned to attempt the item.

Figure 7.2: Item Analysis for Science Items Numbers 1 and 82 For Item 74, Category 1 as the correct answer is chosen by 47.3 per cent of the group, with a mean ability of -0.60. However, the mean ability for this group is not the highest ability compared to other groups who answered Category 2, 3, 4 or 0. These results indicate that for Item 74, many students in the high ability group chose the wrong option, while some students in the low ability group chose the correct answer, hence there is poor discrimination between the
Ramon Mohandas

6 high performing group and the low performing group, or in this case a low or poor discrimination index. Data in Figure 7.2 for science items indicate that the discrimination index for Item 1 is 0.24, which can be regarded as satisfactory, while the discrimination index for Item 82 is -0.07, which is very poor. Further examination of the data indicate that the correct answer for Item 1 is Category 3 (Option c), indicated by a star sign (3*), while the correct answer for Item 82 is Category 4 (Option d), also indicated by a star sign (4*). For Item 1, Category 3 as the correct answer is chosen by 60.3 per cent of the group, with the mean ability of -0.16, which indicates a higher level of ability compared to other groups who answered Category 1, 2, 4, 5, or 0. For Item 82, Category 4 as the correct answer is chosen by 25.7 per cent of the group, with the mean ability of -0.36, which is not the highest ability level compared to other groups who answered Category 1,2, 3, 5 or 0. These results indicate that for Item 82, some students in the higher ability group chose the wrong option, while in the lower ability group many students chose the correct answer, hence there is poor discrimination between the high performing group and the low performing group, or in this case a small or poor discrimination index. The investigation of item properties using the output of the item analysis results in the deletion of several items from further analysis. The types of errors found in the items used in this study have been discussed in Chapter 5, and a description of the items with their errors has been presented in Appendix 5.2. Item Analysis Using the Rasch Procedure The next type of item analysis that should be carried out before further analysis of the data is the selection of items based on the results of the Rasch procedure. There are two command lines that can be used for this purpose. The first one is the show command line, and the second one is the show items command line. The show command line provides output about the summary tables for items and cases, an item map for all cases on the items, and an item fit map for
Ramon Mohandas

7 the items with all cases. The section that follows discusses the item fit map as used in this study. An example extracted from the output using this command line for the mathematics and science tests employed in this study is presented in Figure 7.3. It can be observed from the table that any item, represented by the star (*) sign, that lies between the dotted line in the figure shows that the item lies within the acceptable range. The measures used to decide whether an item is within an acceptable range or not are the infit mean square indices, shown by figures 0.63 to 1.60 listed horizontally in the figure. The infit mean square is the fit statistic in the Rasch procedure and it is weighted to give greater weight to those responses near the steepest segment of the item characteristic curve. The acceptable range for the infit mean square, or in other words, the criterion to accept the items as conforming to the Rasch model is set by the QUEST program to lie within the range of 0.77 to 1.30, indicated by the dotted lines in the figure. Any item outside this range is considered as not conforming to the Rasch model, hence that item should be deleted from further analysis. By using this criterion, all the mathematics and science items shown in the figure conform to the Rasch model because they are all within the range of 0.77 to 1.30, including Item 74 for mathematics and Item 82 for science. These two items were found to have very poor item discrimination as presented in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2 respectively. These two examples of item analysis, namely using classical test theory and Rasch procedure, show the importance of using both types of analysis in the selection of items for further analysis. This is because by using only the Rasch procedure for item analysis might result in having poorly constructed items being included for further analysis.

Ramon Mohandas

8
CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item Fit 1/ 7/98 21:31 all on math (N =7864 L =125 Probability Level= .50) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------INFIT MNSQ .63 .71 .83 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 --------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+----7 item 7 . *| . 8 item 8 . * . 9 item 9 . | * . 10 item 10 . * | . . . 74 item 74 . | *. 75 item 75 . * | . 76 item 76 . | * . 83 item 83 . * | . 84 item 84 . | * . 85 item 85 . * . 86 item 86 . | * . 87 item 87 . * | . . . 221 item 221 . | * . 222 item 222 . | * . 223 item 223 . * | . 224 item 224 . * | . 225 item 225 . | * . 226 item 226 . * | . ================================================================================

CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item Fit 1/ 7/98 21:31 all on science (N =7864 L =101 Probability Level= .50) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------INFIT MNSQ .63 .71 .83 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 --------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+----1 item 1 . | * . 2 item 2 . |* . 3 item 3 . * . 4 item 4 . * | . 5 item 5 . |* . 6 item 6 . |* . . . 81 item 81 . * | . 82 item 82 . | * . 89 item 89 . |* . 90 item 90 . | * . 91 item 91 . * . 92 item 92 . * . 93 item 93 . *| . . . 206 item 206 . * . 207 item 207 . |* . 215 item 215 . * | . 216 item 216 . | * . ================================================================================

## Figure 7.3: Item Fit Map for Mathematics and Science

Ramon Mohandas

9
CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item Estimates (Thresholds) In input Order 1/ 7/98 21:32 all on math (N =7864 L =125 Probability Level= .50) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------ITEM NAME |SCORE MAXSCR| THRSH | INFT OUTFT INFT OUTFT | | 1 | MNSQ MNSQ t t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 item 7 | 1540 3891 | -.12 | .99 .99 -.8 -.5 | | .03| | | | 8 item 8 | 2314 3891 | -1.02 | 1.00 1.03 -.2 1.1 | | .04| | | | 9 item 9 | 1259 3891 | .24 | 1.11 1.15 6.5 5.2 | | .04| | | | 10 item 10 | 446 3891 | 1.70 | .94 .92 -1.6 -1.5 | | .05| | | | . . 74 75 76 83 84 85 86 87 . . 221 item 221 item 74 item 75 item 76 item 83 item 84 item 85 item 86 item 87 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1392 2945 | | | 1825 2945 | | | 1085 2945 | | | 666 2971 | | | 701 2971 | | | 1114 2971 | | | 549 2971 | | | 751 2971 | | | -.47 | .04| | -1.14 | .04| | .01 | .04| | .84 | .05| | .76 | .05| | .02 | .04| | 1.11 | .05| | .66 | .05| | 1.27 .97 1.05 .94 1.20 .99 1.14 .96 1.46 .95 1.06 .95 1.34 1.00 1.26 .98 21.1 -2.6 2.8 -2.2 7.5 -.4 4.6 -1.9 16.1 -1.7 2.2 -1.2 8.0 .0 5.3 -.7

| 200 922 | .85 | 1.04 1.04 .9 .6 | | .08| | | | 222 item 222 | 360 922 | -.09 | 1.14 1.27 5.5 5.2 | | .07| | | | 223 item 223 | 562 922 | -1.08 | .92 .88 -3.8 -2.5 | | .07| | | | 224 item 224 | 448 922 | -.53 | .93 .91 -3.7 -2.1 | | .07| | | | 225 item 225 | 366 922 | -.12 | 1.06 1.09 2.5 1.9 | | .07| | | | 226 item 226 | 370 922 | -.14 | .94 .95 -2.2 -1.1 | | .07| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean | | .00 | 1.01 1.02 -.1 .2 SD | | .72 | .09 .13 4.1 3.0 ================================================================================

## Figure 7.4: Item Estimates for Mathematics

Ramon Mohandas

10

CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Item Estimates (Thresholds) In input Order 1/ 7/98 21:32 all on science (N =7864 L =101 Probability Level= .50) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------ITEM NAME |SCORE MAXSCR| THRSH | INFT OUTFT INFT OUTFT | | 1 | MNSQ MNSQ t t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 item 1 | 2345 3891 | -.75 | 1.03 1.03 3.1 1.7 | | .03| | | | 2 item 2 | 1741 3891 | -.07 | 1.02 1.03 2.3 1.5 | | .03| | | | 3 item 3 | 444 3891 | 1.89 | .99 1.15 -.1 2.8 | | .05| | | | 4 item 4 | 3019 3891 | -1.64 | .92 .87 -3.7 -4.1 | | .04| | | | 5 item 5 | 1204 3891 | .57 | 1.03 1.05 1.9 1.9 | | .04| | | | 6 item 6 | 3085 3891 | -1.75 | 1.01 1.04 .5 1.0 | | .04| | | | . . 81 82 89 90 91 92 93 . . 206 item 206 item 81 item 82 item 89 item 90 item 91 item 92 item 93 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1856 2971 | | | 763 2971 | | | 182 993 | | | 209 993 | | | 355 993 | | | 518 993 | | | 154 993 | | | -.85 | .04| | .85 | .04| | 1.27 | .08| | 1.09 | .08| | .31 | .07| | -.42 | .07| | 1.48 | .09| | .93 1.20 1.03 1.09 1.00 .99 .98 .91 1.33 1.07 1.21 1.00 .99 1.00 -5.3 8.9 .5 2.0 .2 -.4 -.3 -3.8 8.8 1.0 2.9 .1 -.3 .1

| 603 922 | -.97 | 1.00 1.01 .0 .2 | | .07| | | | 207 item 207 | 357 922 | .22 | 1.01 1.01 .5 .2 | | .07| | | | 215 item 215 | 320 922 | .41 | .92 .91 -3.1 -1.9 | | .07| | | | 216 item 216 | 398 922 | .02 | 1.05 1.06 2.5 1.3 | | .07| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean | | .00 | .99 1.01 -.3 .0 SD | | .97 | .06 .10 3.4 2.6 ================================================================================

## Figure 7.5: Item Estimates for Science

Ramon Mohandas

11 The show item command line provides a table containing item parameters such as the difficulty level of the items (item threshold), and the infit mean square as well as the outfit mean square of the items. Examples extracted from the output using this command line for the mathematics and science tests employed in this study are presented in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5 respectively. The use of this output is basically the same as the one produced in the show command line for the purpose of item selection. However, more information is provided in the output from the show items command line. The first column in the Figures 7.4 and 7.5 is the information about the item name. The purpose of this column is to give a name or label to each item in the tests by specifying it in a separate file. However, in these data this item name is not specified so that the program uses the default, which is labelled Item 1, Item 2 and so on (the figures on the left side are the numerical order of the items in the tests). The second column in the figures, score maxscr, provide information about the number of cases who answered each item correctly (score), and the total number of cases who attempted each item (maxscr). In these data, the total number of cases who attempted each item in maxscr column was not the same for all items because these items are distributed in eight different booklets so that the total number of cases who attempted each item depends on the distribution of the items in the booklets. The third column, thrsh, is the item threshold or the difficulty index of the item. The fourth column provides information about the fit indices for each item. Scoring Procedure It should be noted that the scoring procedure should be preceded by the calibration procedure. The Rasch procedure requires that the tests to be calibrated must measure one dimension. The QUEST program using the Rasch procedure could be used to provide a test of unidimensionality and the test of fit to the Rasch model. Those items and persons that did not fit a unidimensionality model would need to be eliminated from the next analysis in order to get a better model.
Ramon Mohandas

12 The ultimate goal of the use of QUEST program in this study is to obtain the scores in mathematics and science for each individual taking the tests. The scores for each individual in mathematics and science are used as outcome measures or the dependent variable for subsequent analysis. The score for each individual is produced in the QUEST program by the show cases command line. These scores are also known as the case estimates or the ability of the persons taking the tests. Before employing the scoring procedure, a decision has to be made about the items that should be deleted in the analysis based on the results of the items analysis, using classical test theory as well as the Rasch procedure. A decision has also to be made about the persons who do not answer or omit a particular item, whether to score it as wrong or whether to ignore it. In this study, it was decided that any omitted item would be scored as wrong. Figure 7.6 presents an example of results of the scoring procedure after the deletion of several items for mathematics and science which have poor discrimination indices or do not conform to the Rasch model. The first column in the figure is the information about name. There are two figures in this column. The first figure on the left is the numerical order of the cases, indicating the number of students who took the tests. The second figure on the right depends on the first information provided in the format command line in the QUEST program, which is defining the content of the data file in particular column(s). In the data file for this study, the first piece of information defined in the format command line is concerned with booklet, so that the information given in the second figure of the first column in the figure is booklet number, which is from 1 to 8. The second column in the figure provides information about the number of items answered correctly by an individual (score), and the number of items attempted by the individual or the maximum score that can be achieved by the individual (maxscr). The third column provides information about the case estimate or the ability of an individual (estimate) and the standard error of the
CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8

Ramon Mohandas

13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case Estimates In input Order 1/ 7/98 23:32 all on math (N =7864 L =116 Probability Level= .50) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------NAME |SCORE MAXSCR | ESTIMATE ERROR | INFIT OUTFT INFT OUTFT | | | MNSQ MNSQ t t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1 | 17 31 | .21 .38 | 1.31 1.40 2.43 1.61 2 1 | 22 31 | 1.00 .42 | .85 .78 -.73 -.68 3 1 | 23 31 | 1.18 .43 | 1.14 1.47 .70 1.34 4 1 | 22 31 | 1.00 .42 | .78 .88 -1.16 -.32 5 1 | 25 31 | 1.59 .48 | .85 .78 -.46 -.42 6 1 | 16 31 | .07 .38 | 1.03 1.03 .32 .21 7 1 | 22 31 | 1.00 .42 | .98 1.01 -.04 .12 8 1 | 20 31 | .67 .40 | .84 .80 -1.03 -.74 9 1 | 16 31 | .07 .38 | 1.03 1.03 .30 .22 10 1 | 26 31 | 1.83 .51 | .99 .93 .08 .01 . . 7855 8 | 12 37 | -.85 .37 | 1.07 1.23 .48 .88 7856 8 | 17 37 | -.20 .35 | .85 .79 -1.45 -.95 7857 8 | 20 37 | .16 .35 | .94 .89 -.52 -.45 7858 8 | 15 37 | -.45 .36 | .91 1.00 -.76 .09 7859 8 | 21 37 | .29 .35 | .89 .83 -.94 -.74 7860 8 | 18 37 | -.08 .35 | .92 .89 -.69 -.46 7861 8 | 14 37 | -.58 .36 | .93 .87 -.50 -.49 7862 8 | 7 37 | -1.64 .44 | 1.01 .88 .12 -.16 7863 8 | 14 37 | -.58 .36 | 1.06 1.01 .48 .13 7864 8 | 11 37 | -.99 .38 | .88 .82 -.67 -.54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean | | -.51 | 1.00 1.01 .01 .06 SD | | .86 | .12 .21 .78 .61 ================================================================================ CONCURRENT EQUATING FOR TEST 1 TO TEST 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case Estimates In input Order 1/ 7/98 23:32 all on science (N =7864 L = 96 Probability Level= .50) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------NAME |SCORE MAXSCR | ESTIMATE ERROR | INFIT OUTFT INFT OUTFT | | | MNSQ MNSQ t t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1 | 19 31 | .37 .40 | .86 .90 -.84 -.28 2 1 | 23 31 | 1.08 .44 | .94 .80 -.22 -.41 3 1 | 23 31 | 1.08 .44 | 1.27 1.90 1.23 1.95 4 1 | 16 31 | -.11 .40 | .78 .71 -1.53 -1.15 5 1 | 22 31 | .89 .43 | 1.17 1.34 .89 .97 6 1 | 20 31 | .54 .41 | .89 .94 -.62 -.09 7 1 | 20 31 | .54 .41 | .77 .71 -1.40 -.95 8 1 | 20 31 | .54 .41 | 1.22 1.23 1.23 .82 9 1 | 18 31 | .21 .40 | 1.00 .97 .02 -.03 10 1 | 25 31 | 1.51 .49 | 1.19 1.28 .74 .69 . . 7855 8 | 11 18 | .45 .54 | 1.15 1.09 .70 .34 7856 8 | 13 18 | 1.07 .58 | 1.56 1.85 1.78 1.50 7857 8 | 13 18 | 1.07 .58 | 1.32 1.36 1.13 .80 7858 8 | 8 18 | -.38 .53 | .76 .68 -1.17 -.85 7859 8 | 11 18 | .45 .54 | .64 .55 -1.73 -1.24 7860 8 | 10 18 | .17 .53 | 1.30 1.32 1.36 .91 7861 8 | 9 18 | -.11 .52 | .76 .69 -1.17 -.83 7862 8 | 10 18 | .17 .53 | 1.06 1.02 .33 .18 7863 8 | 9 18 | -.11 .52 | .79 .70 -1.01 -.81 7864 8 | 6 18 | -.96 .55 | .73 .60 -1.22 -.86 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean | | -.27 | 1.00 1.01 -.01 .06 SD | | .72 | .18 .32 .96 .78 ================================================================================

Figure 7.6: Case Estimates for Mathematics and Science estimate (error). The fourth column provides information about the fit indices for each individual.

Ramon Mohandas

14 It has been noted earlier that the scoring procedure should be preceded by the calibration procedure and the Rasch procedure requires that the tests to be calibrated must measure one dimension. It has also been noted that the QUEST program using the Rasch procedure could be used to provide a test of unidimensionality and the test of fit to the Rasch model. Those items and persons that did not fit a unidimensionality model would need to be eliminated from the next analysis in order to satisfy the requirements of the model. In addition, those persons who have a zero score or a perfect score must be removed in calibration because they do not provide information on the relative difficulty of items. However, in the scoring procedure, those students who do not fit the model because they have been erratic in their responses must ultimately have a score calculated for them, including the persons with zero and perfect scores. Consequently, such erratic students together with those who had a perfect or zero score must be removed for the calibration stage of analysis, but should where possible be reinstated for the scoring stage of analysis.

Ramon Mohandas