REID (Research and Evaluation in Education)


dimension, TOEP, listening

Document Type



This research is aimed at identifying the amount of the ability dimensions contained in the Test of English Proficiency (TOEP), particularly in the listening section. This study is an explorative descriptive quantitative research. The data of the study are the responses of the TOEP participants in the whole Indonesia in 2010, in some TOEP components. The participants are grade IX students of senior high schools. The collected data were gained from the data documentation of the Diretorate of Senior High Schools Founding of the National Education Ministry, Jakarta. The data analysis for identifying the dimension was done by implementing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The exploratory factor analysis was done by using SPSS computer program. The result of the research shows that of the seven sets of listening which were analyzed, all of them contain listening dominant dimension if they are analyzed using graphics method, explainable variance, and Eigen value ratio.

Page Range






Digital Object Identifier (DOI)





Ackerman, T. A., et al. (2003). Using multidimensional item response theory to evaluate educational and psychological tests. Educational Measurement, 22, pp. 37-53.

Anonymous. (2001). Factor analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (1&2), pp. 75-82. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bolt, D. M. (2001). Conditional covariancebased representation of multidimensional test structure. Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol.

, No. 3, pp. 244-257.

Bolt, D. M. & Lall, V. M. (2003). Estimation of compensatory and noncompensatory multidimensional item response models using Marcov

chain Monte-Carlo. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, pp. 395-414.

De la Torre, J. & Patz. (2005). Making the most of what we have: A practical application of multidimensional item response theory in scoring. Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30, pp. 295-311.

Garson, D. (2006). Factor analysis. Retrieved on 24 September 2006 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/index.htm .

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamental of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication Inc.

Hullin, C. L., et al. (1983). Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel88: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Scientific Software International.

Kirisci, L., Hsu, T. & Yu, L. (2001). Robustness of item parameter

estimation programs to assumtions of unidimensionality and normality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, pp. 146-162.

Munby, J. (1981). Communicative syllabus design: A sociolinguistic model for defining the content of purpose-specific language

programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Sireci, S. G., & Geisinger, K. F. (1995). Using subject-matter experts to

assess content representation: An MDS analysis. Applied Psychological

Measurement. Vol. 19. No. 3, pp. 241-255.

Stapleton. (1997). Basic concepts and procedures of confirmatory factor analysis. Retrieved on 25 September 2006 from http://ericae.net/ft/Cfa.HTM

Van de Geer, J. P. (1971). Introduction to multivariate analysis for the social sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Wang, W. C., Chen, P. H., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2004). Improving measurement precission of test batteries using multidimensional item response models. Psychological Methods, Vol 9, No. 1, pp. 116-136.

Wells, C. S. & Purwono, U. 2009. Assesing the fit of IRT models to item response data. Makalah Pelatihan Psikometri Kerjasama Pascasarjana UNY dengan USAID.