•  
  •  
 

Keywords

Estimasi kesalahan pengukuran; Bootstrap; Cut Score; Estimation of error measurement

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengestimasi kesalahan pengukuran pada metode Angoff, Ebel, dan Bookmark dalam penilaian kompetensi Akuntnasi jenjang SMK di DIY yang digunakan standard setter dalam menentukan cut score. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kuantitatif. Sumber data dalam penelitian ini adalah respon peserta Ujian Nasional Praktik Akuntansi Paket 2 tahun ajaran 2011/2012 dengan 338 siswa. Guru-guru yang terlibat dalam Focus Group Discussion (FGD) berjumlah sembilan orang yang terdiri dari tujuh wanita dan dua pria. Teknik analisis dalam penelitian ini dibagi dalam tiga tahap yaitu: (1) persiapan, (2) FGD, (3) estimasi kesalahan pengukuran dengan menggunakan Bootstrap. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa cut score untuk metode Angoff sebesar 67,809, Ebel sebesar 59,034, dan Bookmark sebesar 57,022. Metode Angoff memiliki estimasi kesalahan pengukuran yang paling kecil (2,102) dibandingkan dengan metode Ebel (4,004) dan metode Bookmark (4,042). Oleh karena itu, metode Angoff merupakan metode yang tepat untuk mengestimasi kesalahan pengukuran pada standard setting.

Kata kunci: Estimasi kesalahan pengukuran, Bootstrap, Cut Score

ESTIMATION OF STANDARD SETTING ERROR MEASUREMENT IN ACCOUNTING COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT IN VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS

Abstract

This research aims to estimate the measurement error in the Angof, Ebel, and Bookmark methods in Accounting Competency Assessment in Vocational Schools in DIY used by standard setters in deciding a cut score. This research is quantitative research. Data source in this study was the cut score of seven vocational schools in Yogyakarta that were randomly established. The reseach data were students' answers to the National Examination in Accounting Subject of Package 2 in the academic year of 2011/2012 with 338 students. The teachers who engaged in the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) were nine teachers, consisting of seven women and two men. The technical analysis was divided into three stages. 1) preparation, 2) FGD, 3) estimated error measurement by using the Bootstrap method. The results show that the cut score for the Angoff method is 67.809, Ebel method is 59.034, and Bookmark method is 57.022. The Angoff method has the least estimation of the measurement errors (2.102) as compared with the Ebel method (4.004) and the Bookmark method (4.042). Therefore, the Angoff method is the right method for estimating error measurement on standard setting. Keywords: Estimation of error measurement, Bootstrap, Cut Score

First Page

176

Last Page

188

Issue

2

Volume

19

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v19i2.5578

References

Alsmadi, A. A. (2007). A comparative study of two standard-setting techniques. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(4), 479–486.

Anto, S., & Mardapi, D. (2013). Komparasi metode standard setting untuk penentuan KKM mata pelajaran Matematika kelas VIII SMP. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 17(2), 369–388.

Bejar, I. I. (2008). Standard setting: What is it? Why is it important? R&D Connection, 7, 1–5.

Berk, R. A. (1986). A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on criterion-referenced tests. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 137–172.

Chadha, N. K. (2009). Applied psychometric. First Publishing, India: Vivek Mehra for Sage Publication.

Chesser, A. M. S., Laing, M. R., Miedzybrodzka, Z., Brittenden, J., et al. (2004). Factor analysis can be a useful standard setting tool in a high stakes OSCE assessment. Medical Education, 38, 825–831.

Cohen, A. S., Kane, M. T., & Crooks, T. J. (1999). A generalized examinee-centered method for setting standards on achievement tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(4), 343–366.

Cowel, W. R. (1991). A procedure for estimating the conditional standard error of measurement for GRE general and subject tests. GRE Board Professional Report No. 87-03P, ETS Research Report, 91–25.

David, B. (2000). AMEE Guide No. 18: Standard setting in student assessment. Medical Teacher, 22(2), 120–130.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall. Inc.

Feldt, L. S., Steffen, M., & Gupta, C. N. (1985). A comparison of five methods for estimating the standard error of measurement at specific score model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(4), 351–361.

Guan, W. (2003). From the help desk: boot-strapped standard errors. The Stata Journal, 3(1), 71–80.

Kane, M. T., & Wilson, J. (1984). Errors of measurement and standard setting in mastery testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(9), 107–115.

Kane, M. T. (1994). Validating the performance standards associated with passing score. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 425–461.

Kane, M. T. (2010). Error of measurement, theory, and public policy. Educational Testing Service.

Karantonis, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2006). The Bookmark standard-setting method: A literature review. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Spring, 4–12.

Koffler, S. L. (1980). A comparison of approaches for setting proficiency standards. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17(3), 167–178.

Lee, G. (2000, April 24–28). Estimating reliability and standard error of measurement for complex reading comprehension tests under generalizability theory model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Livingstone, S. A., & Zieky, M. J. (1982). Passing scores: A manual for setting standards of performance on educational and occupational tests. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

Livingstone, S. A., & Zieky, M. J. (2006). A manual for setting standards of performance on educational and occupational tests. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

Mardapi, D. (2008). Teknik Penyusunan instrumen tes dan non tes. Cetakan Pertama. Yogyakarta: Mitra Cendikia Press.

Nichols, P., Twing, J., & Mueller, C. D. (2010). Standard-setting methods as a measurement process. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 14–24.

Nudell, H. (2008, February). Making the cut - the cut score, that is establishing a pass/fail score is a highly technical process. ICSC Certified Professionals Newsletter.

Premastuti, N. B. (2010). Komparasi standard setting metoda group contrast dan Bookmark pada mata pelajaran Akuntansi. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 14(2), 225–245.

Rejeki, S., Mardapi, D., & Kumaidi. (2014). Metode standard setting untuk ujian nasional di sekolah dasar. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 18(1), 89–97.

Retnawati, H. (2008). Penentuan batas lulus (standard setting) ujian nasional mata pelajaran Matematika di DIY. Laporan Penelitian. UNY: PKPSP LP.

Saunders, J. C., Ryan, J. P., & Huynh, H. (1980, March 5–9). A comparison of two ways of setting passing scores based on the Nedelsky procedure. Publication Series in Mastery Testing. South Carolina: University of South Carolina College of Education Colombia. This article is presented at the annual conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Norfolk, Virginia.

Skaggs, G., Hein, S. F., & Awuor, R. (2007). Setting passing Scores on passage-based tests: A comparison of traditional and single-passage Bookmark method. Applied Measurement In Education, 20(4), 405–426.

Subiyakto, H. (1995). Statistika (inferen) untuk bisnis. Edisi ke-1. Cetakan ke-1. Yogyakarta: Bagian Penerbitan Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi.

Whitely, S. E. (1979). Estimating measurement error on highly speeded tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(2), 141–154.

Widayati, W. (2009). Komparasi beberapa metode estimasi kesalahan pengukuran. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 13(2), 182–197.

Yin, P., & Sconing, J. (2008). Estimating standard errors of cut scores for item rating and mapmark procedure: A generalizability theory approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(1), 25–41.

Download

Share

COinS