- Open Access
Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 – Published 15 March, 2006
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010105
Abstract
The Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA), developed by Chabay and Sherwood, was designed to assess student understanding of basic electricity and magnetism concepts covered in college-level calculus-based introductory physics courses. To evaluate the reliability and discriminatory power of this assessment tool, we performed statistical tests focusing both on item analyses (item difficulty index, item discrimination index, and item point biserial coefficient) and on the entire test (test reliability and Ferguson’s delta). The results indicate that BEMA is a reliable assessment tool.
Article Text
References (23)
- R. Beichner, “Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs,” Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
- D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force concept inventory,” Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
- R. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, “Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
- P. Engelhardt and R. Beichner, “Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits,” Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004).
- P. Engelhardt, “Examining students’ understanding of electrical circuits through multiple-choice testing and interviews,” Ph.D thesis, North Carolina State University, 1977.
- D. Maloney, T. O’Kuma, C. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism,” Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
- R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, “Qualitative understanding and retention,” AAPT Announcer 27, 96 (1997).
- R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, “Matter & Interactions,” in PER-based Reform in University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. Cooney (AAPT, College Park, MD, in press).
- G. Aubrecht II and J. Aubrecht, “Constructing objective tests,” Am. J. Phys. 51, 613 (1983).
- R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Matter & Interactions, 1st ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2002), Vol. 2.
- P. Kline, A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to psychometric design (Methuen, London, 1986).
- R. Doran, Basic Measurement and Evaluation of Science Instruction (NSTA, Washington, DC, 1980).
- D. Doran, Ref. [12], p. 97.
- D. Doran, Ref. [12], p. 99.
- E. Ghiselli, J. Campbell, and S. Zedeck, Measurement Theory for the Behavioral Sciences (Freeman, San Francisco, 1981).
- P. Kline, Ref. [11], p. 143.
- E. Ghiselli, J. Campbell, and S. Zedeck, Ref. [15], p. 232.
- E. Ghiselli, J. Campbell, and S. Zedeck, Ref. [15], p. 254–259.
- G. Kuder and M. Richardson, “The theory of the estimation of psychometrika test reliability,” Psychometrika 2, 151 (1937).
- E. Ghiselli, J. Campbell, and S. Zedeck, Ref. [15], p. 255.
- J. Bruning and B. Kintz, Computational Handbook of Statistics, 3rd ed. (Scott, London, 1987).
- D. Doran Ref. [12], p. 104.
- P. Kline, Ref. [11], p. 144.
