LATENT TRAIT ANALYSIS OF PHILIP CARTER’S COGNITIVE ABILITY TEST AMONG JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ONDO STATE, NIGERIA

Authors: Foluke Christianah Ayeyemi & Alaba Adeyemi Adediwura

ABSTRACT

The study assessed cognitive abilities test compliance with Latent Trait Theory assumption of unidimensionality and local independence, it also ascertained the average discrimination and difficulty level of the test. The study adopted a survey design. The population for the study comprised all junior secondary school students in Ondo State and the study sample consisted of 1080 students. Philip Carter’s Cognitive Abilities Test was adopted for data collection and data collected were subjected to inferential statistics. The results showed that the Philip Carter Cognitive Abilities Test violated the Latent Trait Theory assumption of unidimensionality and item local independence. The results also showed that on average the cognitive abilities test difficulty level was very high but the items had a high discrimination index with a low guessing parameter.

The study therefore concluded that the original Philip Carter Cognitive Abilities Test is not suitable for measuring Ondo State Junior Secondary School students’ cognitive ability. However, the adapted 15 items are adequately suitable for measuring students’ cognitive abilities.

REFERENCE

  • Adedoyin, O. O., & Adedoyin, J. A. (2013). Assessing the comparability between classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) models in estimating test item parameters. Herald Journal of Education and General Studies, Volume (2), 107 – 114.
  • Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:  Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
  • Chalmers, R.P. (2012). mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29.
  • Champlain DAF (2010). A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education. Medical Education, 44(1): 109-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03425.x PMid:20078762
  • Courville, T. G. (2004). “Comparison of Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory Item/Person. Unpublished Statistics”Ph.D Dissertation, Texas A & M University.
  • Fan, X. (1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 357-381.
  • Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00543.x
  • Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publication.
  • Lawson, D. M. (2006). Applying the Item Response Theory to Classroom Examinations. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 393-397.
  • McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow: Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • cAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow:  Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow:  Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow:  Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow:  Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow:  Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow:  Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • McAlpine, M. (2002). A Summary of Methods of Item Analysis. University of Glasgow:  Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education
  • Ojerinde, D. (2013). Introduction to Item Response Theory, Parameter Models, Estimation and Application. Abuja. Nigeria. Marvellous Press.
  • Olunloyo O. (2020). Lantern Steps to Verbal Reasoning for Primary Schools 3 (Lower Basic Edition). Lagos: Lantern Books Literamed Publications Nigeria Limited.
  • Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2005). Item response theory and the measurement of clinical change. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 228–238.
  • Stage, C. (2003). Classical Test Theory or Item Response Theory: The Swedish Experience. Centro de Estudios Públicos, 42.
  • Weiss, C., Fried, L., Brandeen-Roche, K. (2007). Exploring the hierarchy of mobility performance in high-functioning older women. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 62, 167–173.
  • Wouters, H., van Gool, W.A., Schmand, B., Lindeboom, R. (2008). Revising the ADAS-cog for a more accurate assessment of cognitive impairment. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 22(3), 236-244.