The Effect of Multiple-Choice Test Items’ Difficulty Degree on the Reliability Coefficient and the Standard Error of Measurement Depending on the Item Response Theory (IRT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at identifying the effect of multiple-choice test items' difficulty degree on the reliability coefficient and the standard error of measurement depending on the item response theory IRT. To achieve the objectives of the study, (WinGen3) software was used to generate the IRT parameters (difficulty, discrimination, guessing) for four forms of the test. Each form consisted of (30) items with different difficulty coefficients averages (-0.24, 0.24, 0.42, 0.93). The resulting items parameters were utilized to generate the ability and responses of (3000) examinees based on the three-parameter model. These data were converted into a readable file using the (SPSS) and the (BILOG-MG3) software. Then the reliability coefficients for the four test forms, the items parameters, and the items information function were calculated, and dependence on the information function values to calculate the standard error of measurement for each item.The results of the study showed that there are statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α ≤ 0.05) between the averages of the values of the standard error of measurement attributed to the difference in the difficulty degree of the items in favor of the test with the higher difficulty coefficient. The results also found that there are apparent differences between the test reliability parameters attributed to the difficulty degree of the test according to the three-parameter model in favor of the form with the average difficulty degree.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.085 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".