Acep Haryudin (1*)

(1) Dosen Tetap Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris STKIP Siliwangi
(*) Corresponding Author




This study is purposed to measure the validity and reliability of English summative test items for the third grade of Junior High School in West Bandung. This research is categorized as quantitativedescriptive analysis because it is intended to describe the difficulty level, discriminating power, distracters effectiveness, validity and reliability of the English Summative Test. The finding of this study are that there are 16 items (53,33%) regarded as easy test items in difficulty level that range from 70-1.00 and 12 items (40%) of total items have satisfactory discriminating power range from 0,20-0,40. In the term of the effectiveness of distractor, 17 items (56,7%) of the distractors are poor. Therefore, this tes has easy difficulty level, satisfactory discriminating power and poor distractors.  Moreover, there are 21 items (70%) of the test regarded valid because the value of correlation coefficient result is greater (>) than table value (rt) = 0.213 for the 5% level. Meanwhile, the number of correlation coefficient (r) of the test is in the amount of 0.71. The correlation number of 0.71 lies between the interval  0.70-0.90 with a high interpretation. It can be concluded that the English Summative test has good validity and high reliability.


Keywords: Validity, Reliability, English Summative Tests





Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengukur Validitas dan Reliabilitas item tes sumatif bahasa Inggris yang  diujikan  kepada siswa  SMPN kelas tiga di Bandung Barat. Penelitian ini dikategorikan sebagai analisis deskriptif karena ini bertujuan untuk menggambarkan tingkat kesulitan, daya pembeda, efektifitas pengecoh, validitas dan reliabilitas item tes bahasa Inggris. Temuan didalam penelitian ini adalah bahwa terdapat 16 item (53,33%) dianggap sebagai tes item yang mudah didalam tingkat kesulitan dari 70-1.00 dan 12 item (40%) dari total item memiliki daya pembeda yang memuaskan dari 0,20-0,40. Kaitannya dengan epektifitas pengecoh, 17 item (56,7%) adalah pengecoh lemah. Dengan demikian, tes ini memiliki tingkat kesulitan yang mudah,  daya pembeda yang memuaskan, dan pengecoh yang lemah. Selain itu, terdapat 21 item (70%) dari tes dianggap valid karena nilai dari hasil korelasi koefisiensi adalah lebih besar (>) dari nilai tabel (rt)=0,213 untuk tingkat 5%. Sementara, jumlah korelasi koefesiensi (r) dari tes adalah sejumlah 0,71. Korelasi nomor 0,71 berada diantara interval 0,70-0,90 dengan penafsiran/interpretasi tinggi. Hal ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa Tes Sumatif  Bahasa Inggris memiliki validitas yang baik dan realibilitas yang tinggi.     


Kata Kunci: Validitas, Reliabilitas dan Tes Sumatif Bahasa Inggris


Validity, Reliability, English Summative Tests


Alderson,et al.1995. Language Test Construction and Evaluation.Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alderson, Charles. (2009). The Politics of Language Education: Individuals and Institutions.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Allen, David. (1998). Assessing Student Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Allison, D.( 1999). Language Testing and Evaluation: an Introductory Course. Singapore University Press: Singapore.

Al–Mashharawi, B.(2006). “Evaluating Teachers’ Performance in Teaching Speaking Communicatively in Preparatory Stage in Jabalia Area”. Unpublished Dissertation, Faculty of Education: IUG.

Al-Shumaimeri, Y. (1999). “An Evaluation of An English Language Test”.Published study, King Saud University, College of Education: KSA.

Anderson, P. and Morgan G. (2008). Developing Tests and Questionnaires for a National Assessment of Educational Achievement. World Bank: Washington, USA.

Arikunto, Suharsini. 1996, Dasar-dasar Evoluasi Pendidik'an Jakarta: Bumi Aksara

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. and Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bailey, A. (2007). The Language Demands of School. New Haven, Yale University Press: New Haven, USA.

Brown, H. Dougles. (2004) language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices. Longman: San Francisco State University.

Brown, J. (2005) Testing in Language Programs. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, James Dean, Testing in Language Programs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regent, 1996.

Brown, J.D. and Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly 32, 653–75.

Carroll, J. B. (1968). ‘The psychology of language testing’ in Davies, A. (ed.) Language Testing Symposium. A Psycholinguistic Perspective. London: Oxford University Press. 46-69.

Choppin, B. (1990). Evaluation, Assessment and Measurement. In International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation. Edited by Walberg, H, & Haertel, G., N, Y,. Peragmon Press.

Colin Phelan, Julie Wren. (2005). Academic Assessment; Exploring Reliability In Academic Assessment.UNI Office of Academic Assessment

Conner, C. (1999). Assessment in Action in the Primary School. Falmer Press: Washington, D.C

David p. Harris (1969) Testing English as a Second Languace. New York: Tata Megrowhill, Inc

DesMarais, R. (2008). Student Success Handbook. USA: New Readers Press

Episcopal, O. (2008). Standardized Achievement Tests at OES.

Fulcher, Glenn and Fred Davidson. (2007) Language Testing and Assessment. London and New York: Routledge

Graves, K. (2000) Designing Language Course .Heinle & Heinle Publishers

Hahn, Nicole. (2007). Assessing the young Learners' Progress: Tests. Muunchen: GRIN Verlag GmbH.

Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of Learning. SAGE: UK.

Heaton, J.B. 1988. Writing English Language Test. London: Longman

H.H. Remmers, et. al., A practical introduction to measurement and evaluation, (New York: Harpers and Brothers, 1960), p. 126.

Hopkins, Charles D. And Antes, L. Richard. 1990. Classroom Measurement and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Huitt, W. (2004, July). Assessment, measurement, and evaluation. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved on the 5th of May, 2010, from:

J. Stanley Ahman and Marvin D. Glock1967, Evaluating Pupil Growth,Principles of Test at and Measurement, third edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon

J. Wayne Wrighstone, 1956. Evaluation in Modern Educalion, New York American Book Company.

Kthleen, M Bailey, Learning about Language Assessment: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Directions, New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 1998.

Lynch, B. K. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing 18 (4) 351–372.

Macalister (2010). Language Curriculum Design. New York.

Purwanto, Ngalim. 1994. Prinsip-prinsip dan Teknik Evaluasi Pengajaran. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya

Richards, J. C. (2001). “Reflective Teaching in TESOL Teacher”. Issues in Language Teacher Education. Retrieved on 13th of August 2010 from:

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Robertson & Nunn. (2013).The Study of Second Language Acquisition in the Asian Context Paperback. The Asian EFL Journal

Sudijono, Anas, Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Jakarta, Raja Grafindo, 2003.

Sudjana, Nana 1991. Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya

Surapranata, Sumarna 2004. Analisis Validitas Reliabilitas dan Interpretasi Hasil Tes Implementasi Kurikulum 2004. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Thorenfeldt, A. (2005). Unpredictable and full of risks? An evaluation of the exam assessment in English in the R’94 vocational courses. University of Oslonsis. Norway.

Wainer and Braun,(1988). Test Validity: American Education Research.

Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wilmar, Tinambunan (1988).Evaluation of Students Achievment, Jakarta: Depdikbud

Woodfield, P. (2008). Assessmentfor Learning and Teaching in Primary Schools Learning Matter: UK.

Wrighstone, Wayne. (1956). Evaluation in modern education : New York : American Book Company.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 1755 times
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia) - 636 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.