USER GUIDE FOR THE ITEM ANALYSIS TEMPLATE © Balajadia 2014

General Directions:
1. Supply the "Worksheet" heading with the necessary data for Division, District, School, Subject, Grade-Section, Exam Title, Period, School Year, Name of Teacher.
2. Arrange checked and scored test papers from highest to lowest scorers.
3. Separate the highest 27% and the lowest 27%. Indicate the total number of students and the number of highest 27% in the "Worksheet" accordingly.
4. Tally the responses of students in the highest 27% (vertical) per item number (horizontal) in the yellow cells. Encode "1" for a correct answer and "0" for a wrong answer. Please, note that if you leave
student 1 blank on a particular item, it means that there are no data for that item.
5. Do step 4 for the lowest 27% in the pink cells.
6. Click the "Main Report" tab below to check the final report ready for interpretation. There is nothing to modify in this page.

Guide for Interpretation

1. Accept as it is. - No revision is needed because the level of difficulty and the discriminating power are enough. Retain the item and can be used again in future exams.
2. Accepted with very slight revision. - You can right away accept and retain the item or make little changes depending on the level of difficulty.
3. Accepted with slight revision. - The item is retained with slight increase or decrease of difficulty as regards the P.
4. May be accepted with minor revision. - The item may be retained or discarded as how you personally evaluate it. If retained, the level of difficulty and choices may be changed.
5. Major revision on the stem / choices. - If you think the item will be ratained, paraphrase the stem and replace the choices which no one chose for an answer.
6. Needs major revision or discarded. - Total paraphrasing of the stem and replacement of non-selected choices should be made. Better yet, discard the item.
7. Totally discard. - The item has to be discarded because it is either too easy or too difficult and is unable to distinguish the low performers from the high performers.
Notes: There are locked cells which you cannot modify to totally prevent errors and misencoding.The "Main Report" sheet is protected, therefore, no midification is necessary.

Instruction for writing the descriptive analysis

A. On the difficulty level of items
1. Group together the items having the same difficulty levels and infer on the topics or competencies the students achieved.
2. Highlight the items of "moderate difficulty" and explain that these items can challenge the students enough to think analytically and critically. Nitko and Brookhart (2011) explain that items with
moderate difficulty are better than those which are very easy or very difficult. In this way, students are genuinely tested of their analytical and critical thinking skills.
3. You may also describe easy items to be indicators of most learned concepts, likewise, difficult items signal the least learned competencies.
B. On the discrimination indices of items
1. Group together the items having the same discrimination indices and infer on the item on its ability to distinguish who thinks more analytically or don't.
2. Items that are very discriminating should be emphasized to discuss the credibility of the test in eliciting authentic learning abilities of students.
3. You may also mention about those which are discriminating and moderately discriminating to be reconsidered after some necessary revision.
4. Infer on the resulting items being non-discriminating and questionable.
C. On the final decision
1. Group together the items having the same decisions and infer on each item on its validity, reliability, and objectivity.
2. Commend the items that are to be accepted and retained right away.
3. Cite examples of revision of some items if there are.
4. Write a general impression of the entire test.

Printing and submission

1. Print the "Main Report" without any modification. Study the table(s).
2. Click the "Interpretation" tab below and accomplish your discussion as specified therein. Print.
3. Submit your report in the following order:
3.1 Main Report
3.2 Interpretation and Desriptive Analysis Report
3.3. Copy of the TOS and Test Paper with correct answers.
Division: Division of Malolos District: Autonomous

Subject / Grade - Section TVL - TECHNICAL DRAFTING 11

Exam Title / Period / School Year PRE - TEST (DIAGNOSTIC)
Name of Teacher MENESES, GERWIN L.
© Balajadia 2014
HIGHEST SCORERS
Total
item/SN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 item/SN 1 2 3 4
Correct
1 1 1 1 0
2 2 2 2 1
3 4 4 3 2
4 4 4 4 3
5 1 1 5 1
6 5 5 6 2
7 3 3 7 1
8 4 4 8 1
9 5 5 9 1
10 5 5 10 1
11 4 4 11 0
12 4 4 12 1
13 1 1 13 1
14 2 2 14 0
15 5 5 15 1
16 5 5 16 3
17 2 2 17 0
18 3 3 18 0
19 1 1 19 1
20 1 1 20 1
21 5 5 21 3
22 4 4 22 1
23 5 5 23 1
24 2 2 24 2
25 1 1 25 1
26 1 1 26 1
27 5 5 27 0
28 3 3 28 1
29 3 3 29 1
30 2 2 30 0

© Balajadia 2014
 31 1 1 31 0
32 3 3 32 2
33 5 5 33 0
34 2 2 34 1
35 2 2 35 2
36 3 3 36 0
37 2 2 37 1
38 1 1 38 1
39 4 4 39 0
40 5 5 40 1
41 4 4 41 2
42 1 1 42 0
43 2 2 43 0
44 3 3 44 1
45 1 1 45 1
46 1 1 46 2
47 4 4 47 1
48 2 2 48 1
49 5 5 49 0
50 4 4 50 1

Total>>> 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total>>> 49 0 0 0

© Balajadia 2014

© Balajadia 2014
 School: Malolos Marine Fishery School And Laboratory

AL DRAFTING 11 Total Number of Students: 10

DIAGNOSTIC) Number of highest scorers (27%): 5
GERWIN L. Number of lowest scorers (27%): 5

LOWEST SCORERS
Total
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Correct
0
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0

© Balajadia 2014
 0
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

© Balajadia 2014
 Department of Education - Region III
Division of Malolos
Autonomous
Malolos Marine Fishery School And Laboratory

ITEM ANALYSIS IN TVL - TECHNICAL DRAFTING 11

PRE - TEST (DIAGNOSTIC)

Exam Title / School Year

Total Students (100%): Name of Teacher:

10 Highest Scorers (27%): 5 Lowest Scorers (27%): 5

Total Total Total Difficulty Index Discrimination Index

Item # Correct Correct Correct
(high) (low) (high+low) P Interpretation D

1 1 0 1 0.10 Very Difficult 0.20

2 2 1 3 0.30 Difficult 0.20
3 4 2 6 0.60 Moderately Difficult 0.40
4 4 3 7 0.70 Easy 0.20
5 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
6 5 2 7 0.70 Easy 0.60
7 3 1 4 0.40 Difficult 0.40
8 4 1 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 0.60
9 5 1 6 0.60 Moderately Difficult 0.80
10 5 1 6 0.60 Moderately Difficult 0.80
11 4 0 4 0.40 Difficult 0.80
12 4 1 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 0.60
13 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
14 2 0 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.40
15 5 1 6 0.60 Moderately Difficult 0.80
16 5 3 8 0.80 Easy 0.40
17 2 0 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.40
18 3 0 3 0.30 Difficult 0.60
19 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
20 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
© Balajadia 2014
21 5 3 8 0.80 Easy 0.40
22 4 1 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 0.60
23 5 1 6 0.60 Moderately Difficult 0.80
24 2 2 4 0.40 Difficult 0.00
25 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
26 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
27 5 0 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 1.00
28 3 1 4 0.40 Difficult 0.40
29 3 1 4 0.40 Difficult 0.40
30 2 0 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.40
 31 1 0 1 0.10 Very Difficult 0.20
32 3 2 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 0.20
33 5 0 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 1.00
34 2 1 3 0.30 Difficult 0.20
35 2 2 4 0.40 Difficult 0.00
36 3 0 3 0.30 Difficult 0.60
37 2 1 3 0.30 Difficult 0.20
38 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
39 4 0 4 0.40 Difficult 0.80
40 5 1 6 0.60 Moderately Difficult 0.80
41 4 2 6 0.60 Moderately Difficult 0.40
42 1 0 1 0.10 Very Difficult 0.20
43 2 0 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.40
44 3 1 4 0.40 Difficult 0.40
45 1 1 2 0.20 Very Difficult 0.00
46 1 2 3 0.30 Difficult -0.20
47 4 1 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 0.60
48 2 1 3 0.30 Difficult 0.20
49 5 0 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 1.00
50 4 1 5 0.50 Moderately Difficult 0.60

Summary of Results
1.Accepted as it is………………………….. 8 4.May be accepted with minor revision…… 12
2.Accepted with very slight revision……… 9 5.Major revision on the stem or choices…. 4
3.Accepted with slight revision……………. 5 6.Needs major revision or be discarded….. 11

Item analysis in: TVL - TECHNICAL DRAFTING 11 PRE - TEST (DIAGNOSTIC)

© Balajadia 2014
of Education - Region III
ision of Malolos
Autonomous
hery School And Laboratory

- TECHNICAL DRAFTING 11

T (DIAGNOSTIC)
Title / School Year

MENESES, GERWIN L.
10 page 1/2

Discrimination Index
Decision
Interpretation

Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.

Moderately Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Moderately Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Discriminating 3.Accepted with slight revision.
Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Very Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Discriminating 5.Major revision on the stem or choices.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Discriminating 5.Major revision on the stem or choices.
Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
© Balajadia 2014
Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Moderately Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Discriminating 3.Accepted with slight revision.
Discriminating 3.Accepted with slight revision.
Discriminating 5.Major revision on the stem or choices.
 Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Moderately Discriminating 3.Accepted with slight revision.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Moderately Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Moderately Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Moderately Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Very Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Discriminating 5.Major revision on the stem or choices.
Discriminating 3.Accepted with slight revision.
Moderately Discriminating 6.Needs major revision or may be discarded.
Not Discriminating 7.Totally discard.
Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.
Moderately Discriminating 4.May be accepted with minor revision.
Very Discriminating 1.Accepted as it is.
Discriminating 2.Accepted with very slight revision.

7.Totally discard….. 1
page 2/2

Signature/Date:
MENESES, GERWIN L.

© Balajadia 2014
 Department of Education - Region III
Division of Malolos
Autonomous
Malolos Marine Fishery School And Laboratory

ITEM ANALYSIS IN TVL - TECHNICAL DRAFTING 11

PRE - TEST (DIAGNOSTIC)
Exam Title / School Year

Interpretation and Descriptive Analysis

Test Difficulty
In terms of the degree of the difficulty of the given examination, in the total score of fifty (50) items as the base line of one - hundred percent, the given
index "easy" garnered fourteen percent (14%) or a total of 7 items. The indicator "moderately difficult" garnered a percentage of fourty six percent
(46%) with a total of 23 items while thirty six (36%) or a total of 18 items were indicated as "difficult. In contrast, the indicator "very difficult" only
garnered a total of four percent (4%) or a total of only two items from the overall number of items from the examination. In summary, the totality of the
examination in terms of difficulty is deemed as Moderately Difficult as reflected by the learner's performance in their indivual scores as derived a total
number of highest scorers and lowest scorers.

Test Discrimination
As a summary of the discrminiation of the given examination of fifty (50) items, the indicator "very discriminating" garnered a total of seventy percent
(70%) from the base line score which is 35 items from the highest scorers and lowest scorers combined. In contrast with this, the indicator
"discriminating" garnered the remaining percentage, which is thirty percent (30%) or a total raw score of 15 or the remaining items out of the given fifty.
As a result, the overall decision derived is that the test discrimination for the given test of the first quarter examination is "Very Discriminating", in that
the test was successful in discriminating the ability of an item to differentiate among students on the basis of how well they know the material being
tested.

Final Impression
As a result of the Decision in the First Quarter Examination of Grade 8 on STVE Technical Drafting, the indicator "Accepted as it is" garnered a total of
thirty six (36%) percent while the indicator "Accepted with very slight revision" earned a total of fourty percent (40%) of the totality with a raw score of
20. The next indicators, which are "Accepted with slight revision" and "May be accepted with minor revision" in turn, both collected a total of ten
percent (10%) or a total of five items collectively, while the last indicator, "Major revision on the stem or choices" accumulated the remaining percentage
with only four percent (4%) with a raw score of only two (2) items. The two remaining indicators which are "Needs major revision" and "totally discard"
both turned out to not achieve any number of total raw score or decision from the analysis. This result shows that the given examination in terms of
degree of difficulty of the items was able to determine and reflect the degree to which an item and the test as a whole are measuring a unitary ability or
attribute of a learner (whether he/she is from the high scorer or low scorer group) and shows that it has a very good reliability for a classroom
examination.
Analyzed and reported by:
MENESES, GERWIN L.
Teacher