Comparative Analysis of Item Parameter Estimates of 2016 Physics WAEC and NECO Senior School Certificate Examination Items Using the 3-Parameter Model of Item Response Theory

This study analysed 2016 WAEC and NECO Senior School Certificate Physics Examination Items using Item Response Theory. The study determined the difficulty levels of 2016 WAEC and NECO Physics objective tests. It also investigated the discriminating power of items on WAEC and NECO Physics objective tests and finally ascertained the difference in guessing parameter of WAEC and NECO 2016 physics objective test items. These were done with a view to providing information on the comparability of the psychometrics qualities (discrimination and difficulty) of the examination items. Descriptive survey research design was adopted for the study. The population of the study consisted all public Senior Secondary school Physics student in Osun state. A sample size of 1020, SS3 Physics Students was selected using multi-stage sampling technique. From each of the three Senatorial Districts in Osun State, two Local Government Areas (LGAs) were selected using simple random sampling technique. Three schools were selected from each Local Government Area using simple random sampling technique, making a total of 18 schools. The research instruments for the study were WAEC and NECO Physics objective tests. These instruments were the adopted versions of 2016 WAEC and NECO Physics objective tests. These instruments were administered on the SS3 Physics Students who enrolled for 2019 WAEC. The data were analysed using chi square, mean and standard deviation.
The results showed that the average difficulty levels of NECO and WAEC Physics objective items were 2.11 and 1.25 respectively. Also, the results showed that the average discrimination levels of NECO and WAEC Physics tests items were 3.43 and 2.37 respectively. The results equally showed that the average vulnerability to guessing of 2016 NECO and WAEC Physics test items were 0.13 and 0.16 respectively.
The study concluded that the item parameters of WAEC and NECO Physics objective tests were statistically comparable.

WAEC, NECO, Item Response Theory (IRT) and Item Parameters

1. Achor, E. E., Ochonogor, C. E., & Daikwo, S. A. (2011). Relative abstract nature of the three core science subjects at the senior secondary level in Nigeria as exemplified by classroom interaction patterns. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 152–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adegoke, B. A. (2013). Comparison of Items Statistics of Physics Achievement Test Using Classical Test and Item Response Theory Frameworks. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(22), 8331-8667. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adeyemo, S. (2010). Teaching and learning of Physics in Nigerian secondary schools:The curriculum transformation,issues,problems and prospects. International journal of Educational Research and Technology, 1(1), 99-111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Akindele, O. A. (2003). Fundamentals of test and measurement. Lagos: Crown Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ani, E. (2014). Application of Item Response Theory in the Development and Validation of Multiple Choice Test in Economics. Msc Thesis,University of Nigeria Nsukka. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Awopeju, O. A., & Afolabi, E. R. I. (2016). Comparative Analysis of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory Based Item Parameter Estimates of Senior School Certificate Mathematics Examination. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n28p263 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Babatimehin, T. (2021). Determination of the Equivalence of WAEC and NECO SSCE Chemistry Items Using Linear Test Equating Approaches of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), 15, 187-207. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Baker, B. (2001). The basis of Item Response Theory in United States of America (2nd ed.). USA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dibu, O. O. (2013). Classical Test Theory (CTT) VS Item Response Theory (IRT) and Evaluation of the Comparability of Item Analysis Results. Ibadan: Institute of Education University of Ibadan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Erinosho, S. (2013). How do students perceive the difficulty of physics in Secondary School? An exploratory study in Nigeria. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 3(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Han, K. (2012). Fixing the c Parameter in the Three- Parameter Logistic Model. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Li, H., Jiao, H., & Lissitz, R. W. (2012). Exploring the impact of item response model and ability estimation methods on test score equating. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 590–607. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lebeau, B., & Liu, O. L. (2017). Effects of test mode on student performance and test-taking behavior: Paper-based vs. computer-based testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(3), 38–46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Obinne, A. E. (2008). Comparison of Psychometric Properties of WAEC and NECO Test Item under Item Response Theory. Unpublished PhD Thesis University of Nigeria Nssuka. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Olutola, A. T. (2015). Empirical Analysis of Item Difficulty and Discrimination indices of Senior School Certificate Multiple Choice Biology Tests in Nigeria. A paper presented at the 41st annual conference of International Association of Educational Assessment (IAEA) held on 11th-15th October, 2015 at University of Kansa, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Reeve, R., & Fayers. (2005). Applying Item Response Theory Modelling for Evaluating Questionnaire Items and Scale Properties (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press, Oxford. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Steyer, R. (2014). Classical (Psychometric) Test Theory. USA: international Encyclopedia of the Social and behavioral Sciences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ugwoke, E. O. (2015). Effectiveness Utilization of ICT for Repositioning Business Education Programme in Tertiary Institutions in Nigeria for National Development. International Journal of Education Research, 11(1), 201-214. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Wallace, C., Prather, E., & Duncan, D. (2012). A Study on General Education Astronomy Students Understanding of Cosmology: Evaluating Conceptual Cosmology Survey. An Item Response Approach. The American Astronomical society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Steyer, R. (2014). Test theory: A unified treatment. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Stout, W. (2005). DIMTEST 2.0. London: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study