Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika
Articles
DOI: 10.20414/betajtm.v19i1.779
Submitted: 2026-03-26
Published: 2026-05-30

Assessing the problem-solving test items and self-efficacy questionnaire in statistics education

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Item analysis Problem-solving ability Self-efficacy Statistics

Galleys

Abstract

[English]: The study aims to analyze the quality of problem-solving test items and a self-efficacy questionnaire using the AnBuso application as an analytical tool. The problem-solving test items were developed to measure the students’ cognitive abilities ranging from understanding (C2) to evaluating (C5) in statistical topics. This study employed a quantitative descriptive approach focusing on eight-grade students at a public school SMP Negeri 1 Mlati. The sample consisted of 32 students selected as research subjects. The analysis examined the test item characteristics, including discriminative power, difficulty level, expert validity, and item reliability. The findings indicated that 53.33% of the items had good discriminative function, 20% had fairly good function, and 26.67% had poor function. A total of 33.33% of the items were classified as easy, 66.67% as moderate, and none as difficult. The validity was 0.90 (highly valid), and the reliability of multiple-choice items was 0.51 (moderate), while open-ended items reached 0.72 (high). Meanwhile, the self-efficacy questionnaire had a validity of 0.89 (highly valid) and a reliability of 0.83 (very high). Overall, the test instruments and questionnaire showed high validity and adequate reliability. It is hoped that the research finding can serve as a reference for educators and curriculum developers in designing better evaluation tools so that the learning objectives can be optimally achieved.

[Bahasa]: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kualitas butir soal kemampuan pemecahan masalah dan angket self-efficacy dengan memanfaatkan aplikasi AnBuso sebagai alat bantu analisis. Soal kemampuan pemecahan masalah dikembangkan untuk mengukur kemampuan kognitif siswa pada level memahami (C2) hingga mengevaluasi (C5) dalam konteks materi statistika. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan deskriptif kuantitatif dengan fokus utama pada siswa kelas VIII di SMP Negeri 1 Mlati pada materi statistika. Sampel penelitian terdiri atas 32 orang siswa yang dipilih sebagai subjek penelitian. Proses analisis dilakukan dari segi karakteristik soal yaitu daya pembeda, tingkat kesulitan kemudian validitas ahli, dan reliabilitas soal. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa instrumen pemecahan masalah memiliki daya pembeda yaitu 53.33% soal memiliki fungsi pembeda yang baik, 20% cukup baik, dan 26.67% tidak baik. Sebanyak 33.33% soal tergolong mudah, 66.67% sedang, dan tidak ada soal yang tergolong sulit. Kevalidan sebesar 0.90 (sangat valid) dan reliabilitas soal pilihan ganda sebesar 0.51 (sedang), soal uraian 0.72 (tinggi). Sementara angket self-efficacy memiliki kevalidan sebesar 0.89 (sangat valid) dan reliabilitas sebesar 0.83 (sangat tinggi). Secara keseluruhan, instrumen tes dan angket yang digunakan menunjukkan tingkat kevalidan yang sangat valid serta reliabilitas yang memadai. Hasil analisis ini diharapkan dapat menjadi acuan bagi pendidik dan pengembang kurikulum dalam menyusun alat evaluasi yang lebih baik, sehingga tujuan pembelajaran dapat tercapai secara optimal.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Alifia, N. N., & Rakhmawati, I. A. (2018). Kajian kemampuan self-efficacy matematis siswa dalam pemecahan masalah matematika. Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika, 5(1), 44–54. Retrieved from https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/jpm/article/view/26024
  2. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
  4. Andersson, B., & Wiberg, M. (2017). Item response theory observed-score kernel equating. Psychometrika, 82(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9528-7
  5. Arifin, Z. (2012). Evaluasi pembelajaran. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
  6. Arikunto, S. (2019). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
  7. Astuti, A. P., Aziz, A., Sumarti, S. S., & Bharati, D. A. L. (2019). Preparing 21st century teachers: Implementation of 4C character’s pre-service teacher through teaching practice. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1233(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1233/1/012109
  8. Azwar, S. (2019). Reliabilitas dan validitas (Edisi 4). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  9. Balqis, Patmawati, H., & Yulianto, E. (2024). Perbedaan kemampuan siswa dalam memecahkan masalah matematika berdasarkan tingkat self-confidence pada materi statistika. Jurnal Kongruen, 3(2), 162–169. Retrieved from https://jurnal.unsil.ac.id/index.php/kongruen/article/view/12336
  10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
  11. Căprioară, D. (2015). Problem solving - purpose and means of learning mathematics in school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1859–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.332
  12. Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  13. Farida, F., & Musyarofah, A. (2021). Validitas dan reliabilitas dalam analisis butir soal. Al-Muarrib Journal of Arabic Education, 1(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.32923/al-muarrib.v1i1.2100
  14. Florea, N. M., & Hurjui, E. (2015). Critical thinking in elementary school children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.161
  15. Inoue, N., Asada, T., Maeda, N., & Nakamura, S. (2019). Deconstructing teacher expertise for inquiry-based teaching: Looking into consensus building pedagogy in Japanese classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.016
  16. Istiyono, E. (2020). Pengembangan instrumen penilaian dan analisis hasil belajar fisika dengan teori tes klasik dan modern. Yogyakarta: UNY Press.
  17. Kartowagiran, B. (2012). Penulisan butir soal. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
  18. Khotimah, N. H., Khoirunnisa, A., & Bilda, D. W. (2020). Pengaruh self-efficacy siswa SMP terhadap pemecahan masalah pada materi aritmetika sosial. EDISI: Jurnal Edukasi Dan Sains, 2(2), 285–291. Retrieved from https://ejournal.stitpn.ac.id/index.php/edisi
  19. Mardapi, D. (2012). Pengukuran, penilaian, dan evaluasi pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Nuha Medika.
  20. Mataheru, W., Laurens, T., Moma, L., & Sampulawa, H. (2019). Analysis of student thinking processes in mathematical problem solving using saintificial approach. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advanced Multidisciplinary Research (ICAMR 2018). Presented at the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advanced Multidisciplinary Research (ICAMR 2018), Makassar, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/ICAMR-18.2019.51
  21. Muhson, A., Lestari, B., Supriyanto, S., & Baroroh, K. (2014). Pengembangan software analisis butir soal yang praktis dan aplikatif. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Malang, 20(2), 110163. https://doi.org/10.17977/JIP.V20I2.4618
  22. NCTM. (2000). Standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 7(2), 1–16. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_and_Standards_for_School_Math.html?hl=id&id=BkoqAQAAMAAJ
  23. Nortvedt, G. A., & Buchholtz, N. (2018). Assessment in mathematics education: Responding to issues regarding methodology, policy, and equity. ZDM 2018 50:4, 50(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11858-018-0963-Z
  24. Nuutila, K., Tapola, A., Tuominen, H., Molnár, G., & Niemivirta, M. (2021). Mutual relationships between the levels of and changes in interest, self-efficacy, and perceived difficulty during task engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, 102090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102090
  25. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I) what students know and can do. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
  26. Okyranida, I. Y., Mayanty, S., & Widiyatun, F. (2024). Analisis butir soal kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa SMAIT Nururrohmah Depok. Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Fisika, 15(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.26877/jp2f.v15i1.17057
  27. Ormonoy, T. (2022). The importance of solving math problems in elementary school: Pentingnya memecahkan masalah matematika di sekolah dasar. Indonesian Journal of Education Methods Development, 17(4), 10.21070/ijemd.v20i.628-10.21070/ijemd.v20i.628. https://doi.org/10.21070/IJEMD.V20I.628
  28. Pardimin, P., Widodo, S. A., & Purwaningsih, I. E. (2017). Analisis butir soal tes pemecahan masalah matematika. WACANA AKADEMIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Kependidikan, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.30738/WA.V1I1.1084
  29. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. Scientific Research Publishing.
  30. Purba, Y. O., Fadhilaturrahmi, Purba, J. T., & Siahaan, K. W. A. (2021). Teknik uji instrumen penelitian pendidikan. Bandung: Widina Bhakti Persada.
  31. Putri, W. K. H. W., & Prabawanto, S. (2019). The analysis of students’ self-efficacy in learning mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(3), 032113. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032113
  32. Retnawati, H. (2016). Analisis kuantitatif instrumen penelitian. Yogyakarta: Parama Publishing.
  33. Retnawati, H., Hadi, S., Nugraha, A. C., Ramadhan, M. T., Apino, E., Djidu, H., … Sulistyaningsih, E. (2017). Menyusun laporan hasil asesmen pendidikan di sekolah. Yogyakarta: UNY Press.
  34. Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x
  35. Saputri, H. A., Zulhijrah, Larasati, N. J., & Shaleh. (2023). Analisis instrumen assesmen: Validitas, reliabilitas, tingkat kesukaran dan daya beda butir soal. Didaktik: Jurnal Ilmiah PGSD STKIP Subang, 9(5), 2986–2995. https://doi.org/10.36989/DIDAKTIK.V9I5.2268
  36. Sudaryono, Rahayu, Wardani., & Margono, Gaguk. (2013). Pengembangan instrumen penelitian pendidikan. 174. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
  37. Sudijono, Anas. (2017). Pengantar evaluasi pendidikan. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
  38. Syaiful, S., Kamid, K., Muslim, M., & Huda, N. (2020). Identifiying of problem-solving abilities in mathematics among junior high school students. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 14(2), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v14i2.14861
  39. Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., & Norris, K. (2018). I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.015
  40. Wong, T. T. Y., & Yip, E. S. K. (2023). What is the unknown? the ability to identify the semantic role of the unknown from word problems longitudinally predicts mathematical problem-solving performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, 102183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102183
  41. Yousuf, Ms. I., & Rajeswari, G. (2024). Relationship between mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics achievement. International Journal of Emerging Knowledge Studies, 03(10), 797–802. https://doi.org/10.70333/IJEKS-03-10-011

How to Cite

Nursahid, I., Abadi, A. M., & Sianipar, W. A. (2026). Assessing the problem-solving test items and self-efficacy questionnaire in statistics education. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 19(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v19i1.779

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Imam Nursahid, Agus Maman Abadi, Wahyu Anugerah Sianipar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.