The Students’ Final Score

Correct Percent Correct Answer x 10 Final

No Name
Answer (%) Number of item Score

1 76 (23x 10) : 30 7,6

Bintang H 23
2 76 (23x 10) : 30 7,6
Amrin 23
3 73 (22x 10) : 30 7,3
Afriyanti R 22
4 73 (22 x 10) : 30 7,3
Armin A 22
5 70 (21 x 10) : 30 7
Muh. Indyrwan 21
6 70 (21 x 10) : 30 7
Andi Muh. S 21
7 70 (21 x 10) : 30 7
Muh. Januar S 21
8 70 (21 x 10) : 30 7
Inggrid N 21
9 70 (21 x 10) : 30 7
Hajar Akbar 21
10 70 (21x 10) : 30 7
Muh. Fadli A 21
11 66 (20x 10) : 30 6,6
20
Astryd Ulianto
12 66 (20x 10) : 30 6,6
20
Suhardiman
13 66 (20x 10) : 30 6,6
20
Safrul Fauzi
14 66 (20x 10) : 30 6,6
20
Supardi
15 63 (19x 10) : 30 6,3
19
Riqadri H
63 (19x 10) : 30 6,3
19
16 Ld. Ichsan
63 (19x 10) : 30 6,3
19
17 Tasyani . J
60 (18x 10) : 30 6
18
18 Jumardin S
60 (18x 10) : 30 6
18
19 Citra Amalia P
60 (18x 10) : 30 6
18
20 Abdul Hoir
56 (17x 10) : 30 5,6
17
21 Muh. Ridwan
56 (17x 10) : 30 5,6
17
22 Raswa
53 (16x 10) : 30 5,3
16
23 Suci Sri Resqi
 53 (16x 10) : 30 5,3
16
24 Nur Fina Sari
50 (15x 10) : 30 5
15
25 Wandani
43 (13x 10) : 30 4,3
13
26 Asla Suci
40 (12x 10) : 30 4
12
27 Reva
40 (12x 10) : 30 4
12
28 Mirnawati D
33 (10x 10) : 30 3,3
10
29 Novi Zaskia
33 (10x 10) : 30 3,3
10
30 Dian Ardianti

Mean : ∑ final score: 30 = 174,5/30 = 5,8

Median: 6
Modus : 7

Item difficulty

The result of item difficulty analysis

The formula : DL= HG + LG
N
Students : 30

Table of Difficulty Level Analysis

Item HG LG HG+L N IF Interpretation

G
1 15 14 29 30 0,97 Easy
2 15 15 30 30 1 Easy
3 15 14 29 30 0,97 Easy
4 15 15 30 30 1 Easy
5 14 9 23 30 0,77 Easy
6 14 8 22 30 0,73 Easy
7 15 11 26 30 0,87 Easy
8 15 15 30 30 1 Easy
9 15 12 27 30 0,9 Easy
10 15 14 29 30 0,97 Easy
11 15 10 25 30 0,83 Easy
12 15 15 30 30 1 Easy
13 6 4 10 30 0,33 Moderate
14 14 7 21 30 0,7 Moderate
15 8 3 11 30 0,37 Moderate
16 15 7 22 30 0,73 Easy
17 15 10 25 30 0,83 Easy
18 2 0 2 30 0,07 Difficult
19 13 9 22 30 0,73 Easy
20 13 4 17 30 0,57 Moderate
21 7 0 7 30 0,23 Difficult
22 0 2 2 30 0,07 Difficult
23 10 2 12 30 0,4 Difficult
24 0 2 2 30 0,07 Difficult
25 0 1 1 30 0,03 Difficult
26 14 7 21 30 0,7 Moderate
27 2 11 13 30 0,43 Moderate
28 2 2 4 30 0,13 Difficult
29 1 1 2 30 0,07 Difficult
30 15 13 28 30 0,93 Easy

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the result of difficulty analysis by using the
criteria according to Arikunto ( 1993: 214) as the following table:

Index of Item Total Percent Category

Difficulty(IF) (100%)
0,00-0,30 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, Difficult
8 27
29
0,30-0,70 13, 14, 15, 20,26, 27 6 20 Moderate
0,70-1,00 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, Easy
16 53
11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 30

From the table above, it can be seen that the test item made by teacher found 16
items are difficult (53%), 6 items are moderate (20%), and 8 items are difficult (27%).
Considering to the percentage, the writer concludes that this test is the easiest one
because the percentage of the easiest items (53%) is higher than the difficulty items (27%).
On the other words, the test is not good enough. So, it needs to be revised in terms of the
difficulties level.

Discriminating Power Analysis

The result of Item Discriminating Power Analysis
The formula : D = HG-LG
½N Students : 30

Table of Discriminating Power Analysis

Item HG LG HG- N ID Interpretation

LG
1 15 14 1 15 0,0 Poor
7
2 15 15 0 15 0 Poor
3 15 14 1 15 0,0 Poor
7
4 15 15 0 15 0 Poor
5 14 9 5 15 0,3 Good
3
6 14 8 6 15 0,4 Poor
7 15 11 4 15 0,2 Moderate
7
8 15 15 0 15 0 Poor
9 15 12 3 15 0,2 Poor
10 15 14 1 15 0,0 Poor
7
11 15 10 5 15 0,3 Good
3
12 15 15 0 15 0 Poor
13 6 4 2 15 0,1 Marginal
3
14 14 7 7 15 0,4 Very good
7
15 8 3 5 15 0,3 Good
3
16 15 7 8 15 0,5 Very good
3
17 15 10 5 15 0,3 Good
3
18 2 0 2 15 0,1 Marginal
3
19 13 9 4 15 0,2 Moderate
7
20 13 4 9 15 0,6 Poor
21 7 0 7 15 0,4 Very good
7
22 0 2 -2 15 -0,1 Poor
23 10 2 8 15 0,5 Very good
3
24 0 2 -2 15 -0,1 Poor
25 0 1 -1 15 -0,1 Poor
26 14 7 7 15 0,4 Very good
7
27 2 11 -9 15 -0,6 Poor
28 2 2 0 15 0 Poor
29 1 1 0 15 0 Poor
30 15 13 2 15 0,1 Marginal
3

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the result of Discriminating Power Analysis by
using the criteria of Ebel as the following table:

Index of Item Total Percent (%) Category

Discrimination
0,40 – up 14, 16, 21, 23, 26 5 17 Very good
0,30 - 0,39 5, 11, 15, 17 4 13 Good
0,20 – 0,29 7, 19 2 6 Moderate
0,10 – 0,19 13, 18, 30 3 1 Marginal
<0,10 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16 53 Poor
12, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27,
28, 29
Total 30 100%

Having seen on the discriminating power above, the percentage of good, moderate
and poor items is not balance. It means that the discriminating power of this item is not good
since we can not distinguish between the upper and the lower group, there is a big range
among them. From the table above, we can see that the percentage of good items are 4 items
(13%), 2 items are moderate (6%), and 16 items (53%) are poor or need to be revised. It
shows that quality of the test items is low. So, it should be improved in order to fulfill the
discrimination index between upper and lower group.
Distracter Item Analysis

Table of Distracter Item Analysis

Item Optio HL N (% Distracter

n )
1 A 29 30 97  Effective
  B 1 30 3  Ineffective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective
2 A 30 30 100  Effective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective
3 A 0 30 0  Ineffective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 30 30 100  Effective
4 A 0 30 0  Ineffective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 30 30 100  Effective
5 A 1 30 3  Ineffective
  B 5 30 17  Effective
  C 22 30 73  Effective
  D 2 30 7  Effective
6 A 4 30 13  Effective
  B 4 30 13  Effective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 22 30 73  Effective
7 A 27 30 90  Effective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 2 30 7  Effective
  D 1 30 3  Ineffective
8 A 0 30 0  Ineffective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 30 30 100  Effective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective
9 A 26 30 87  Effective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 4 30 13  Effective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective
10 A 0 30 0  Ineffective
  B 30 30 100  Effective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective
11 A 25 30 83  Effective
  B 2 30 7  Effective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 3 30 10  Effective
12 A 0 30 0  Ineffective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 30 30 100  Effective
13 A 13 30 43  Effective
  B 10 30 33  Effective
  C 5 30 17  Effective
  D 2 30 7  Effective
14 A 3 30 10  Effective
  B 23 30 77  Effective
  C 3 30 10  Effective
  D 1 30 3  Ineffective
15 A 8 30 27  Effective
  B 4 30 13  Effective
  C 11 30 37  Effective
  D 7 30 23  Effective
16 A 24 30 80  Effective
  B 6 30 20  Effective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective
17 A 5 30 17  Effective
  B 1 30 3  Ineffective
  C 24 30 80  Effective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective
18 A 0 30 0  Ineffective
  B 28 30 93  Effective
  C 0 30 0  Ineffective
  D 2 30 7  Effective
19 A 24 30 80  Effective
  B 3 30 10  Effective
  C 1 30 3  Ineffective
  D 2 30 7  Effective
20 A 4 30 13  Effective
  B 0 30 0  Ineffective
  C 20 30 67  Effective
  D 6 30 20  Effective
21 A 2 30 7  Effective
  B 16 30 53  Effective
  C 7 30 23  Effective
  D 5 30 17  Effective
22 A 10 30 33  Effective
  B 11 30 37  Effective
  C 2 30 7  Effective
  D 7 30 23  Effective
23 A 1 30 3  Ineffective
  B 9 30 30  Effective
  C 8 30 27  Effective
  D 12 30 40  Effective
24 A 14 30 47  Effective
  B 12 30 40  Effective
  C 2 30 7  Effective
  D 2 30 7  Effective
25 A 0 30 0  Ineffective
  B 24 30 80  Effective
  C 1 30 3  Ineffective
  D 5 30 17  Effective
26 A 1 30 3  Ineffective
  B 3 30 10  Effective
  C 21 30 70  Effective
  D 5 30 17  Effective
27 A 12 30 40  Effective
  B 3 30 10  Effective
  C 6 30 20  Effective
  D 9 30 30  Effective
28 A 6 30 20  Effective
  B 14 30 47  Effective
  C 5 30 17  Effective
  D 5 30 17  Effective
29 A 6 30 20  Effective
  B 6 30 20  Effective
  C 17 30 57  Effective
  D 1 30 3  Ineffective
30 A 2 30 7  Effective
  B 0 30 0 Ineffective 
  C 28 30 93  Effective
  D 0 30 0  Ineffective

Note: the criteria for an effective option, if an option is chosen by 5% by the

respondents.

Based on the analysis above, it found that there were 75 items which had effective
distracter and there were 45 items which had ineffective distracter. So, it is clear that
effective distracter is higher than ineffective distracter. Therefore, it can be concluded that
this test is good enough since the effective distracter is higher than the ineffective one.
However, the writer found that these distracters can not functionally distract the students in
attempting the test. As the previous analysis of the test, we can see that there are several
items can be easily answered by the students.
 CONCLUSION

Referring to the analysis of teacher-made test that was used on the SMKN 4 Kendari , it can
be concluded as follows :

 In terms of the content validity, this test is categorized as a good one because there is
a significant relationship between the subject matter which is taught in class TKJ A of
SMK Negeri 4 Kendari with the test content. the content of the test represents the
whole material that has been constructed by the teacher. Teacher take all materials
to test students’ ability in mastering the subject matters that has been taught.
 The reliability of the test is moderate which can be seen from the students’ answer
and the result of student’s score. It can be seen that the reliability of the test is 0,48.
Since the reliability of the test is moderate, means that the test is simply good for
the students, it’s not to be revised but need to be improved in order to improve the
reliability of the test itself.
 From the point of item difficulty analysis, the writer found that there are 16 items are
difficult (53%), 6 items are moderate (20%), and 8 items are difficult (27%).
Considering to the percentage, the writer concludes that this test is the easiest one
because the percentage of the easiest items (53%) is higher than the difficulty items
(27%). On the other words, the test is not good enough. So, it needs to be revised in
terms of the difficulties level.
 From the point of discriminating power analysis there are 4 items (13%) are good, 2
items are moderate (6%), and 16 items (53%) are poor or need to be revised. It shows
that quality of the test items is low. So, it should be improved in order to fulfill the
discrimination index between upper and lower group.
 Regarding to the distracter of the test, the writer found that there were 75 items which
had effective distracter and there were 45 items which had ineffective distracter. So, it
is clear that effective distracter is higher than ineffective distracter. Therefore, it can
be concluded that this test is good enough since the effective distracter is higher than
the ineffective one. However, the writer found that these distracters can not
functionally distract the students in attempting the test. As the previous analysis of the
test, we can see that there are several items can be easily answered by the students.