Home⇛JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Journal⇛vol. 58 no. 4 (2024)

Analysis of Model Fit and Test Information on Otis-Lennon School Ability Test Using Item Response Theory

Rey-mark Basagre | Ranier Cerna

Discipline: education and teaching

 

Abstract:

The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) is widely used in different academic institutions for various purposes, such as admission tests, performance predictions, and intelligence tests. However, there has yet to be a study on its model fit, item evaluation, and overall test information. This study examined the OLSAT item and the overall test information used by a state university in the admission process through the lens of item response theory utilizing R Studio. Specifically, it seeks to determine the model fit of the data from the university’s standardized entrance test and to examine the test information for the standardized entrance test. Comparing the nested models suggests that the more complex model fits the data better (p = 0.000), which is the 2 Parameter Logistic Model. Some items’ p-values suggest local dependence, but it can be tolerated upon examination of some of the actual items. The index of difficulty ranges from -51.33198812 to 11.61952106, while the discrimination index ranges from -0.04759777 to 1.16897332 suggesting that some items have a very low discrimination index and some have a high difficulty index. In conclusion, the test provides more information about the middle portion of the ability scale, which is suitable for admission purposes of the test.



References:

  1. Antonak, R. F., King, S., & Lowy, J. J. (1982). Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test, Stanford Achievement Test, and three demographic variables as predictors of achievement in grades 2 and 4. The Journal of Educational Research, 75(6), 366-373.
  2. Avant, A. H., & O’neal, M. R. (1986). Investigation of the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test to Predict WISC-R Full Scale IQ for Referred Children.
  3. Basagre, R. M. (2023, April). Effects of hands-on structured inquiry activities into students’ conceptual understanding. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2619, No. 1). AIP Publishing.
  4. Basagre, R. M. G. (2018, July). Inquiry-Based Formative Assessment in Grade 10 Electricity and Magnetism. In Ascendens Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2, No. 4).
  5. Borromeo, M., Briones, M., Mahipos, J., Mamites, M., Namoc, G., Requillo, A., Tan, E., Tejero, Z., Yu, K., & Marquez, S. (2007). The predictive validity of Otis-Lenon school ability test on the scholastic performance of Cebu Doctors’ University physical therapy students batch 2006 and 2007. Bachelor’s thesis, Cebu Doctors’ University, College of Rehabilitative Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy.
  6. Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., & Sumintono, B. (2021). Assessing computational thinking abilities among Singapore secondary students: A Rasch model measurement analysis. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(2), 213-236.
  7. Chen, W. H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265-289.
  8. Davenport, B. M. (1976). A comparison of the peabody individual achievement test, the metropolitan achievement test, and the otis‐lennon mental ability test. Psychology in the Schools, 13(3), 291-297.
  9. DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Oxford University Press.
  10. Dirlik, E. M. (2019). The Comparison of Item Parameters Estimated From Parametric and Nonparametric Item Response Theory Models in Case of The Violance of Local Independence Assumption. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(4), 229-240.
  11. Dominguez, O. R. J., San, A. L. J. O., & Ferrer, S. F. M. (2023). Admission and retention requirements of the Bachelor of Science in Accountancy Program in Camarines Norte State College: basis for policy enhancement. DIU Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 16(01), 153-178.
  12. Edwards, M. C., Houts, C. R., & Cai, L. (2018). A diagnostic procedure to detect departures from local independence in item response theory models. Psychological methods, 23(1), 138.
  13. Guidang, E. P. (2016). Multiple Choice Test Randomizer of ICT Department of Abra State Institute of Science and Technology. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research, 23(1), 46-62.
  14. Guilmette, T. J., Kennedy, M. L., & Queally, P. T. (2001). A comparison of the WISC-III and the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test with students referred for learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19(3), 239-244.
  15. Istiyono, E. (2017). The analysis of senior high school students’ physics HOTS in Bantul District measured using PhysReMChoTHOTS. Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995184
  16. Karrh, K. D. (2009). Predictors of student achievement in grade 7: The correlations between the Stanford Achievement Test, Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, and performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) math and reading tests. Liberty University.
  17. Kingston, N., Leary, L., & Wightman, L. (1985). An exploratory study of the applicability of item response theory methods to the graduate management admission test 1. ETS Research Report Series, 1985(2), i-56.
  18. Mangubat, A. (2023). Development of Diagnostic Test in Reading for Grade 7. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research, 53(1), 236-252.
  19. Medallon, M. C., & Cataquis, R. E. (2011). Predictive Validity of the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) to the First Semester Performance of Incoming Students at Lyceum of the Philippines–Laguna. Lyceum of the Philippines–Laguna Research Journal, 1(1), 1-1.
  20. Ning, H. K. (2017). A psychometric evaluation of the achievement goal questionnaire–revised in Singapore secondary students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(4), 424-436.
  21. Ordonez, V., & Ordonez, R. M. (2009). Accreditation in the Philippines: A case study. In Higher Education in Asia/Pacific: Quality and the public good (pp. 201-215). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
  22. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289-298.
  23. Otis, A. S. (1989). Otis-Lennon school ability test. Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  24. Perera, C. J., Sumintono, B., & Jiang, N. (2018). The psychometric validation of the principal practices questionnaire based on item response theory. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 2(1), 21-38.
  25. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425-435.
  26. Sapp, G. L., & Marshall Jr, J. (1984). The Otis-Lennon school ability test: A study of validity. Psychological reports, 55(2), 539-544
  27. Sireci, S. G., Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (1991). On the reliability of testlet‐based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(3), 237-247.
  28. Zenisky, A. L., Hambleton, R. K., & Sired, S. G. (2002). Identification and evaluation of local item dependencies in the Medical College Admissions Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(4), 291-309.
  29. Thissen, D., & Orlando, M. (2001). Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In Test scoring (pp. 85-152). Routledge.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic