Pedagogical Research

• Abdel-Hameed, A. A., Al-Faris, E. A., Alorainy, I. A., & Al-Rukban, M. O. (2005). The criteria and analysis of good multiple choice questions in a health professional setting. Saudi Medical Journal, 26(10), 1505-1510.
• Adegoke, B. A. (2013). Comparison of item statistics of physics achievement test using classical test and item response theory frameworks. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(22), 87-96.
• Alcantara, E. C. (2015). On the derivation of some reduction formula through tabular integration by parts. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(1), 80-84.
• Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Brooks/Cole.
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
• Argianti, A., & Retnawati, H. (2020). Characteristics of math national-standardized school exam test items in junior high school: What must be considered? Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan [Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation], 24(2), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v24i2.32547
• Arsaythamby, V., & Julinamary, P. (2015). Students’ perception on difficulties of symbols, graphs and problem solving in economic. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177(1), 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.401
• Awopeju, O. A., & Afolabi, E. R. I. (2016). Comparative analysis of classical test theory and item response theory based item parameter estimates of senior school certificate mathematics examination. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 263-284. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n28p263
• Bardhoshi, G., & Erford, B. T. (2017). Processes and procedures for estimating score reliability and precision. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 256-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1388680
• Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782481
• Bass, R. V. (1997). The purpose of education. Educational Forum, 61(2), 128-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729709335242
• Bhardwaj, A. (2016). Importance of education in human life: A holistic approach. International Journal of Science and Consciousness, 2(2), 23-28.
• Bichi, A. A., & Embong, R. (2018). Evaluating the quality of Islamic civilization and Asian civilizations examination questions. Asian People Journal, 1(1), 93-109.
• Borji, V., & Font, V. (2019). Exploring students’ understanding of integration by parts: A combined use of APOS and OSA. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(7), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106166
• Borji, V., Radmehr, F., & Font, V. (2021). The impact of procedural and conceptual teaching on students’ mathematical performance over time. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(3), 404-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1688404
• Borozová, H., & Rydval, J. (2014). Analysis of exam results of the subject ‘applied mathematics for IT.’ Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 7(3-4), 59-65. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2014.070303
• Chen, W. H., Lenderking, W., Jin, Y., Wyrwich, K. W., Gelhorn, H., & Revicki, D. A. (2014). Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 485-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5
• Chiavaroli, N., & Familari, M. (2011). When majority doesn’t rule: The use of discrimination indices to improve the quality of MCQs. Bioscience Education, 17(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.17.8
• Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Cengage Learning.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• DiBattista, D., & Kurzawa, L. (2011). Examination of the quality of multiple-choice items on classroom tests. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.4
• Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020103
• Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement. Prentice-Hall.
• García-García, J., & Dolores-Flores, C. (2018). Intra-mathematical connections made by high school students in performing calculus tasks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(2), 227-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1355994
• García-García, J., & Dolores-Flores, C. (2020). Exploring pre-university students’ mathematical connections when solving calculus application problems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(7), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1729429
• Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q., & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1082-1116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317726529
• Gleason, J. (2008). An evaluation of mathematics competitions using item response theory. Notices of the AMS, 55(1), 8-15.
• Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1988). Functional distractors: Implications for test-item writing and test design. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-20).
• Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1993). How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test item? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 999-1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053004013
• Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850381
• Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00543.x
• Heinze, A., Star, J. R., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Flexible and adaptive use of strategies and representations in mathematics education. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(5), 535-540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0214-4
• Hingorjo, M. R., & Jaleel, F. (2012). Analysis of one-best MCQs: The difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 62(2), 142-147.
• Horowitz, D. (1990). Tabular integration by parts. The College Mathematics Journal, 21(4), 307-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/07468342.1990.11973325
• Jailani, J., Retnawati, H., Apino, E., & Santoso, A. (2020). High school students’ difficulties in making mathematical connections when solving problems. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(8), 255-277. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.14
• Katz, I. R., Bennett, R. E., & Berger, A. E. (2000). Effects of response format on difficulty of SAT-mathematics items: It’s not the strategy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01075.x
• Kiat, S. E. (2005). Analysis of students’ difficulties in solving integration problems. The Mathematics Educator, 9(1), 39-59.
• Li, V. L., Julaihi, N. H., & Eng, T. H. (2017). Misconceptions and errors in learning integral calculus. Asian Journal of University Education, 13(1), 17-39.
• Magno, C. (2009). Demonstrating the difference between classical test theory and item response theory using derived test data. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1(1), 1-11.
• Maharani, A. V., & Putro, N. H. P. S. (2020). Item analysis of English final semester test. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 5(2), 491-504. https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v5i2.302
• Marsh, H. W., Köller, O., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x
• Matheson, G. J. (2019). We need to talk about reliability: Making better use of test-retest studies for study design and interpretation. PeerJ, 7(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6918
• Meyer, J. P. (2014). Applied measurement with jMetrik. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203115190
• Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(3), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519509540013
• Muna, W., Hanafi, H., & Rahim, A. (2019). Analisis kualitas tes buatan guru mata pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia pada siswa SMP kelas IX berbasis HOTS [Analysis of the quality of tests made by Indonesian language teachers for grade IX junior high school students based on HOTS]. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa [Journal of Language Education], 8(2), 29-40.
• Muzangwa, J., & Chifamba, P. (2012). Analysis of errors and misconceptions in the learning of calculus by undergraduate students. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 5(2), 1-10.
• National Education Standards Board. (2018). Prosedur operasional standar penyelenggaraan ujian sekolah berstandar nasional [Standard operating procedure of the administration of national-standardized school examination]. https://bsnp-indonesia.org/2018/12/bsnp-tetapkan-pos-usbn-dan-un-2019/
• National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
• Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of students. Pearson.
• Osadebe, P. U. (2015). Construction of valid and reliable test for assessment of students. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 51-56.
• President of the Republic of Indonesia. (2003). Act of the Republic of Indonesia number 20 year 2003 on national education system. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/84435/93875/F8347727/IDN84435.pdf
• Price, L. R. (2017). Psychometric methods: Theory into practice. The Guilford Press.
• Quaigrain, K., & Arhin, A. K. (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-11. http://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1301013
• Rafi, I., & Retnawati, H. (2018). What are the common errors made by students in solving logarithm problems? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012157
• Retnawati, H. (2016). Analisis kuantitatif instrumen penelitian [Quantitative analysis of research instrument]. Parama Publishing.
• Retnawati, H., Hadi, S., Munadi, S., Hadiana, D., & Muhardis, M. (2019). Evaluasi penyelenggaraan sistem ujian akhir Indonesia [Evaluation of system of final examination in Indonesia]. http://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/132255129/penelitian/Lap%20Akhir-Evaluasi%20Sistem%20US%20USBN%20dan%20UN%20Heri%20Retnawati%20dkk%20UNY%2010%20November%202019.pdf
• Retnawati, H., Kartowagiran, B., Arlinwibowo, J., & Sulistyaningsih, E. (2017). Why are the mathematics national examination items difficult and what is teachers’ strategy to overcome it? International Journal of Instruction, 10(3), 257-276. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10317a
• Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Willson, V. (2010). Measurement and assessment in education. Pearson.
• Reynolds, T., Perkins, K., & Brutten, S. (1994). A comparative item analysis study of a language testing instrument. Language Testing, 11(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229401100102
• Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x
• Rudner, L. M., & Schafer, W. D. (Eds.). (2002). What teachers need to know about assessment. National Education Association of the United States.
• Sampouw, F., & Retnawati, H. (2020). Characteristics of non-compulsory mathematics test items on nationally standardized school examination in Kaimana Regency, West Papua Indonesia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1581(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1581/1/012034
• Simms, M., & George, B. (2014). Approaching assessment from a learning perspective: Elevating assessment beyond technique. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9176-8
• Talebi, G. A., Ghaffari, R., Eskandarzadeh, E., & Oskouei, A. E. (2013). Item analysis an effective tool for assessing exam quality, designing appropriate exam and determining weakness in teaching. Research and Development in Medical Education, 2(2), 69-72. https://doi.org/10.5681/rdme.2013.016
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Medical Teacher, 33(6), 447-458. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.564682
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2012). Post-examination interpretation of objective test data: Monitoring and improving the quality of high-stakes examinations: AMEE Guide No. 66. Medical Teacher, 34(3), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.651178
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2016). Postexamination analysis: A means of improving the exam cycle. Academic Medicine, 91(9), 1324. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001220
• Testa, S., Toscano, A., & Rosato, R. (2018). Distractor efficiency in an item pool for a statistics classroom exam: Assessing its relation with item cognitive level classified according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01585
• Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing. John Wiley & Sons.
• Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I. A., & Zait, A. (2015). How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia-Economics and Finance, 20(1), 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00123-9
• Wells, C. S., & Wollack, J. A. (2003). An instructor’s guide to understanding test reliability. https://testing.wisc.edu/Reliability.pdf
• Wiliam, D. (2001). Reliability, validity, and all that jazz. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 29(3), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270185200311
• Yusron, E., Retnawati, H., & Rafi, I. (2020). Bagaimana hasil penyetaraan paket tes USBN pada mata pelajaran matematika dengan teori respons butir? [How are the results of the equating of test packages of mathematics USBN with item response theory?] Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika [Journal of Mathematics Education Research], 7(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v7i1.31221
• Zanon, C., Hutz, C. S., Yoo, H., & Hambleton, R. K. (2016). An application of item response theory to psychological test development. Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica [Psychology: Reflection and Criticism], 29(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0040-x

APA

Rafi, I., Retnawati, H., Apino, E., Hadiana, D., Lydiati, I., & Rosyada, M. N. (2023). What might be frequently overlooked is actually still beneficial: Learning from post national-standardized school examination. Pedagogical Research, 8(1), em0145. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12657

Vancouver

Rafi I, Retnawati H, Apino E, Hadiana D, Lydiati I, Rosyada MN. What might be frequently overlooked is actually still beneficial: Learning from post national-standardized school examination. PEDAGOGICAL RES. 2023;8(1):em0145. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12657

AMA

Rafi I, Retnawati H, Apino E, Hadiana D, Lydiati I, Rosyada MN. What might be frequently overlooked is actually still beneficial: Learning from post national-standardized school examination. PEDAGOGICAL RES. 2023;8(1), em0145. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12657

Chicago

Rafi, Ibnu, Heri Retnawati, Ezi Apino, Deni Hadiana, Ida Lydiati, and Munaya Nikma Rosyada. "What might be frequently overlooked is actually still beneficial: Learning from post national-standardized school examination". Pedagogical Research 2023 8 no. 1 (2023): em0145. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12657

Harvard

Rafi, I., Retnawati, H., Apino, E., Hadiana, D., Lydiati, I., and Rosyada, M. N. (2023). What might be frequently overlooked is actually still beneficial: Learning from post national-standardized school examination. Pedagogical Research, 8(1), em0145. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12657

MLA

Rafi, Ibnu et al. "What might be frequently overlooked is actually still beneficial: Learning from post national-standardized school examination". Pedagogical Research, vol. 8, no. 1, 2023, em0145. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12657