•  
  •  
 

Keywords

standard setting, minimum mastery criteria, standard setting validity

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menemukan skor batas Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimum (KKM) de-ngan memanfaatkan metode yang ada dalam standard setting. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode Extended Angoff dan metode Ebel. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kuantitatif yang diperkuat dengan data kualitatif. Data kuantitatif yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pola respon peserta didik atas soal UKK SMP/MTs Kelas VIII Mapel Matematika Kabupaten Sleman 2011/2012. Selain itu, dalam penentuan cut of score, juga digunakan data kuantitatif yang diperoleh dari expert judgement. Sementara expert judgement yang bersifat kualitatif digunakan untuk menilai kualitas pelaksanaan pertemuan standard setting. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa cutscore yang diperoleh dengan menggunakan metode Extended Angoff maupun Ebel masing-masing 59 dan 50,98 pada skala 100. Cutscore ini berbeda cukup signifikan dengan KKM sekolah yang ditentukan dengan menggunakan metode konvensional. Berdasarkan analisis validitas standard setting, metode Extended Angoff memberikan hasil cutscore yang relatif lebih valid dibanding metode Ebel. Validitas standard setting yang diukur dalam penelitian ini adalah validitas internal yang meliputi method consistency, decision consistency, intra-judge consistency, dan inter-judge consistency.

Kata kunci: standard setting, KKM, validitas standard setting

______________________________________________________________

COMPARISON OF STANDARD SETTING METHOD FOR DETERMINING MINIMUM MASTERY CRITERIA

Abstract The objective of the research is to find cutscore of Minimum Mastery Criteria (KKM) by utilizing methods existing in standard setting. The methods used are Extended Angoff and Ebel methods. This research is quantitative descriptive one supported by qualitative data. Quantitative data used in this research are the pattern of students' responses against the problems of Mathematics at the End of the Year Examination for SMP/MTs for eight graders in Kabupaten Sleman 2011/2012. In addition, quantitative data obtained from expert judgement are also used for determining cut of score. Meanwhile, qualitative expert judgement is used to assess the quality of standard setting meeting. The result of this research shows that cutscore gained using both Extended Angoff and Ebel methods is 59 and 50,98 respectively on a scale of 100. This cutscore is significantly different from school KKM defined using conventional method. Based on analysis of standard setting, Extended Angoff method would provide cutscore result that is relatively more valid compared to Ebel. The validity of standard setting measured in this research is the internal validity including method consistency, decision consistency, intra-judge consistency, and inter-judge consistency.

Keywords: standard setting, minimum mastery criteria, standard setting validity

First Page

369

Last Page

388

Issue

2

Volume

17

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v17i2.1706

References

Alderson, J.C. (1993). Judgements in language testing. In D. Douglas C. Chapelle (Eds), A new decade of language testing research (pp.46-57). Alexandria, VA: TESOL

Athanasou, J. A., Lamprianou, I. (2009). A teacher’s guide to educational assessment. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Cizek, G. J. & Bunch, B. B. (2007). Standard setting: a guide to establishing and evaluating performance standard on test. ND: Sage Publications

Cohen, A. S., Kane, M. T., & Crooks, T. J. (1999). A generalized examinee-centered method for setting standard on achievement test [Versi Elektronik]. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(4),

Ebel, Robert L. (1979). Essentials of educatio- nal measurement. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.

Fowell, S.L., Fewtrell, R., & McLaughlin,P.J. (2008) Estimating the minimum number of judges required for test-centered standard setting on written assessments. Do discussion and iteration have an influence? Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 13 (1): 11-24.

Loomis, S.C., Hanick, P.L., Bay,L., & Crouse, J.D. (2000). Developing achieve- ment levels for the 1998 NAEP in civics interim report: field trials. ACT, Inc.

Norcini, J.J., Lipner, R.S., Langdon, L.O., & Streeker, C.A. (1987). A comparison of three variations on standard-setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24 (1), 56-64.

Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., Willson,V. (2010). Measurement and assessment in education (2nd ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Stahl, John A. (2008). Standard setting methodologies: Strengths and weaknesses., http://www.iaea2008.cambridgeasses sment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/18050 2_Stahl.pdf.

Wells, C. S. (2007). Makalah kuliah umum.

Yogyakarta.

Download

Share

COinS