Development of A Comprehensive Instrument for The Islamic Education Subject Examination
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31538/tijie.v6i3.1940Keywords:
Instrument Development, Comprehensive Examination, Islamic Religious EducationAbstract
This study aims to develop a comprehensive instrument for the Islamic Education course examination. Because the implementation of the Comprehensive Examination is still partial, flexible, and not yet supported by an instrument that has gone through a systematic quality testing process, it employs a research and development (R&D) approach, adopting a modified version of the Borg and Gall development model, which consists of seven stages: (1) research and information gathering, (2) planning, (3) development of the initial product, (4) limited trial, (5) revision of the initial product, (6) field testing, and (7) final product revision. Data were collected through interview guidelines and questionnaires to examine the theoretical and empirical characteristics of the test items. Data analysis was conducted using the R Studio application to determine item discrimination, difficulty level, and distractor effectiveness. The results indicate that the final product consists of 5 difficult items (25%), 12 moderate items (60%), and three easy items (15%). In terms of item discrimination, eight items (40%) were classified as very good, seven items (35%) as good, and five items (25%) as requiring revision. Regarding distractor effectiveness, 17 items (85%) were categorized as good, while three items (15%) were considered requiring revision. Based on the development of comprehensive instruments, the Islamic Education course shows good quality and is suitable for use.
Downloads
References
Adib, H. S. (2017). Teknik pengembangan instrumen penelitian ilmiah di perguruan tinggi keagamaan islam (Techniques for developing scientific research instruments in Islamic religious universities). Prosiding Seminar Nasional & Internasional.
Anderson, W. P., Krauskopf, C. J., Rogers, M. E., Neal, G. W., Rogers, M. E., & Neal, G. W. (1984). Reasons for comprehensive examinations: A re-evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 11(2), 78–82.
Assyauqi, M. I. (2020). Model Pengembangan Borg and Gall (Borg and Gall Development Model). Researchgate, No. December.
Auliyah, R., Herawati, N., & Utami, A. D. (2011). Bagaimanakah Penafsiran Ujian Komprehensif Menurut Civitas Akademik Universitas Trunojoyo? (How does the academic community at Trunojoyo University interpret comprehensive examinations?). InFestasi, 7(1), 64–75.
Banta, T. W., & Schneider, J. A. (1986). Using Locally Developed Comprehensive Exams for Majors to Assess and Improve Academic Program Quality.
Bray, A., Byrne, P., & O’Kelly, M. (2020). A short instrument for measuring students’ confidence with ‘key skills’(sicks): Development, validation and initial results. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100700.
Damis, R. (2018). Efektivitas Ujian Komprehensif Dalam Meningkatkan Kompotensi Mahasiswa Prodi Ilmu Aqidah (The Effectiveness of Comprehensive Exams in Improving the Competence of Students in the Aqidah Study Program). Aqidah-Ta: Jurnal Ilmu Aqidah, 4(1), 57–72.
DiBattista, D., & Kurzawa, L. (2011). Examination of the quality of multiple-choice items on classroom tests. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 4.
Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Test item development: Validity evidence from quality assurance procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(1), 61–82.
Friatma, A., & Anhar, A. (2019). Analysis of validity, reliability, discrimination, difficulty and distraction effectiveness in learning assessment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1387(1), 12063.
Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q., & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1082–1116.
Gustiani, S. (2019). Research and development (R&D) method as a model design in educational research and its alternatives. Holistics, 11(2).
Johari, J., Abd Wahab, D., Ramli, R., Saibani, N., Sahari, J., & Muhamad, N. (2012). Identifying student-focused intervention programmes through discrimination index. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 135–141.
Juliani, A., Nurhayati, N., Pertama, F. P., Nurhasanah, N., Hidayat, A., Iklimah, S. E., Herawati, N., Agustiani, T., Darmawan, A., & Puri, J. A. (2025). Asesmen Multiliterasi (Multiliteracies Assessment). Indonesia Emas Group.
Kholis, R. A. N. (2017). Analisis Tingkat Kesulitan (difficulty level) soal pada buku sejarah kebudayaan Islam Kurikulum 2013 (Analysis of the difficulty level of questions in the 2013 Curriculum Islamic Cultural History textbook). Jurnal Pendidikan Agama Islam, 14(2), 305–315.
Krisma, D. A., & Fatih’Adna, S. (2023). Analisis butir soal ujian tengah semester mata kuliah probabilitas: Bagaimana kualitasnya? (Analysis of midterm exam questions for the probability course: How good are they?) Pythagoras: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 12(1), 1–15.
LISTS, R. (n.d.). Comprehensive Exams.
Mahjabeen, W., Alam, S., Hassan, U., Zafar, T., Butt, R., Konain, S., & Rizvi, M. (2017). Difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency in multiple choice questions. Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University, 13(4), 310–315.
Özdemir, A. Z., & Toker, Z. (2025). Analysis of distractors in mathematics questions and their potential to lead misconceptions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56, 101730.
Ponder, N., Beatty, S. E., & Foxx, W. (2004). Doctoral comprehensive exams in marketing: Current practices and emerging perspectives. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(3), 226–235.
Quaigrain, K., & Arhin, A. K. (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1301013.
Ratumanan, T. G., & Laurens, T. (2011). Penilaian hasil belajar pada tingkat satuan pendidikan (Assessment of learning outcomes at the educational unit level.). Surabaya: Unesa.
Suwarna, I. P. (2016). Pengembangan instrumen ujian komprehensif mahasiswa melalui computer based test pada program studi pendidikan fisika (Development of comprehensive student assessment instruments through computer-based testing in physics education study programs). Jakarta: Puslitpen UIN Jakarta
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296.
Team, P. (2023). RStudio: integrated development environment for R. Posit Software. PBC. Http://Www. Posit. Co.
Tobin, K., & Gebo, E. (2008). Assessing student learning and departmental effectiveness through an undergraduate comprehensive exam. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(3), 223–238.
Wibawa, E. A. (2019). Karakteristik butir soal tes ujian akhir semester hukum bisnis (Characteristics of business law final exam questions). Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi Indonesia, 17(1), 86–96.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2025-08-22 (2)
- 2025-07-04 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muh Syahrul Sarea, Andi Harpeni Dewantara, Sabbar Dahham Sabbar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Tafkir: Interdisciplinary Journal of Islamic Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://pasca.jurnalikhac.ac.id/index.php/tijie/index.
