Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 6 no. 6 (2025)

Development and Validation of Multiple-Choice Assessment Tool in Undergraduate Genetics Using Rasch Modeling

Alvin M. Mahawan | Je-Ann R. Banzuelo | Jo Neil Peria

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

In response to persistent gaps in genetics literacy and the lack of val-idated assessment tools, this study developed and validated a 40-item multiple-choice assessment tool in undergraduate Genetics us-ing Rasch modeling. The need for this tool arises from curriculum mandates, such as the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) framework, and global calls for equitable, high-quality science education aligned with SDG 4 and the OECD’s science competency benchmarks. Using a developmental re-search design, the tool was constructed based on key Genetics con-cepts aligned with the Philippine BSED Science curriculum. Items were reviewed by Genetics experts for content validity. The instru-ment was pilot-tested among 200 undergraduates using stratified random sampling to ensure representation across gender and aca-demic backgrounds. Rasch analysis was conducted using R Studio (TAM and eRm packages) to evaluate item fit, unidimensionality, dif-ficulty targeting, differential item functioning (DIF), and reliability. Results indicated that 33 of 40 items demonstrated good model fit, with a principal component analysis (PCA) eigenvalue of 1.9 sup-porting unidimensionality. The item-person map showed that item difficulty aligned well with student ability levels, with minimal ceil-ing and floor effects. DIF analysis confirmed measurement invari-ance across gender and academic background, with all DIF contrast values falling within ±0.5 logits. Reliability indices were high (KR-20 and Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87), and person separation index was 2.6, confirming the tool’s capacity to differentiate among multiple ability levels. The study concludes that the developed tool is psychometri-cally sound, equitable, and instructionally valuable. It is recom-mended for use in undergraduate Genetics courses for diagnostic and summative assessment. Future research may expand the tool to broader domains in Genetics and evaluate its impact on instruc-tional quality and student learning outcomes.



References:

  1. Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2022). Validation of a science assessment using Rasch meas-urement: A focus on energy concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 412–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21782
  2. Almerino, P. M., Etcuban, J. O., & Dela Cruz, R. A. (2020). Assessing science education in the Philippines: Gaps and challenges. In-ternational Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1245–1265, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1756512
  3. Alnahdi, G. H. (2020). Measurement invariance of a university admission test across gen-der using the Rasch model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00183-x
  4. Arjoon, J. A., Xu, X., & Lewis, J. E. (2021). Ap-plying Rasch analysis to evaluate the psy-chometric properties of a chemistry con-cept inventory. Journal of Chemical Edu-cation, 98(4), 1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01284
  5. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814698
  6. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4.
  7. Chung, I. H. (2022). A DIF analysis of the INAP-L using the Rasch model. World Journal of English Language, 12(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n2p140.
  8. Commission on Higher Education (CHED). (2017). CMO No. 89: Policies, standards, and guidelines for the Bachelor of Sec-ondary Education (BSED) program. https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CMO-No.89-s2017.pdf.
  9. Linacre, J. M. (2012). Winsteps. Rasch meas-urement computer program (version 3.75). Winsteps.com.
  10. Linacre, J. M. (2021). A user’s guide to Win-steps: Rasch-model computer programs (version 5.1). Winsteps.com.
  11. Montecillo, A. D., Garcia, L. L., & Reyes, J. C. (2023). Genetics literacy among Filipino undergraduates: Identifying gaps in Men-delian and molecular genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 57(2), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2023.1234567.
  12. OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 science framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777
  13. OECD. (2020). AHELO feasibility study: As-sessment of higher education learning outcomes. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4ddxprzvl7-en
  14. Preston, R., Gratani, M., Owens, J., & Roche, C. (2020). The role of multiple-choice ques-tions in assessing clinical reasoning. Med-ical Education, 54(8), 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14180
  15. Prevost, L. B., Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2022). Using the Genetics Concept As-sessment to evaluate the Rasch model’s utility in undergraduate biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(1), ar15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-09-0186
  16. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2020). The Genetics Concept Assess-ment: A new tool for measuring student understanding of genetics. CBE—Life Sci-ences Education, 7(4), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045
  17. Tarrant, M., Knierim, A., Hayes, S. K., & Ware, J. (2021). The frequency of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high-stakes nursing assessments. Nurse Education Today, 100, 104876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104876
  18. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  19. Tibell, L. A., & Rundgren, C. J. (2020). Educa-tional challenges of molecular life sci-ence: Characteristics and implications for education and research. Science & Educa-tion, 29(2), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00110-0
  20. UNESCO. (2021). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap (ESD for 2030). UNESCO Publishing. https://doi.org/10.54675/YFJE3456
  21. United Nations (UN). (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals report 2022. UN Pub-lishing. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210014340
  22. World Bank. (2023). Improving STEM educa-tion in low- and middle-income countries: A roadmap for policy makers. World Bank Group. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1898-9
  23. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (2023). Best test design: Rasch measurement. MESA Press. 
  24. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic