







































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141  133 

      10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2311          http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index            eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id 

The quality of an English summative test of a public junior 

High School, Kupang-NTT 

Thresia Trivict Semiun a,1,*, Fransiska Densiana Luruk b,2  

a, b University of Timor, El Tari Km 09, Sasi-Kefamenanu-East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia 
1tsemiun@yahoo.co.id*; 2 densianaluruk@gmail.com 

* corresponding author 

 

1. Introduction   

The scholars are in harmony to say that validity and reliability are the two important criteria for 
the quality of language testing. Validity is related to “how well what is assessed corresponds with 
the behaviour or learning outcomes that should be assessed” (Iliya, 2014). It is to see whether or not 
a test measures accurately what it is intended to measure (Hughes, 1989). Meanwhile, Haryudin 
(2015) asserted reliability as “the consistency of the examination scores. Also, it refers to the scope 
to which the test produces consistent results if different markers mark it.” According to Bachman & 
Palmer (1996), reliability is defined as consistency of test scores. Validity and reliability cannot be 
separated with assessment. Assessment is a scientific method of the evaluation to acquire feedbacks 
related to the information of teaching and learning, make teachers and students see the achievements 
and shortcomings clearly, and improve teaching and learning efficiently (Qu & Zhang, 2013). In 
evaluating students’ achievement, a teacher-made test should bear objective and accurate scores. Of 
course, developing a good test is not easy to do, especially if teachers do not understand or have 
limited information related to the procedures or principles of a good test. However, if the test is not 
good, the result yielded by the test is of course not good too. This can harm students since the result 
is not objective and unfair, and the students’ true competence cannot be reflected. Arikunto (2013) 
stated that teacher-made tests are useful to determine how good students master the learning 
materials given in a particular time are, to determine whether a learning objective is already 
accomplished, and to obtain scores. For these reasons, it is important for teachers to possess the 
skills of creating valid and reliable test and also in analyzing assessments.   

A R T I C LE  IN F O  

 

ABST RACT  

 

 

Article history 

Received   02 July, 2020 

Revised   30 July, 2020 

Accepted   30 August, 2020 

 This study aimed at examining the quality of an English summative test 
of grade VII in a public school located in Kupang. Particularly, this 
study examined content validity, reliability, and conducted item analysis 
including item validity, item difficulty, item discrimination, and 
distracter effectiveness. This study was descriptive evaluative research 
with documentation to collect data. The data was analyzed 
quantitatively except for content validity, which was done qualitatively. 
Content validity was analyzed by matching the test items with materials 
stated in the curriculum. The findings revealed that the English 
summative test had a high content validity. The reliability was estimated 
by applying the Kuder-Richardson’s formula (K-R20). The result 
showed that the test was reliable and very good for a classroom test. The 
item analysis was conducted by using ITEMAN 3.0 and it revealed that 
the test was mostly constructed by easy items, most of the items could 
discriminate the students, most distracters were able to perform well, 
and the most of items were valid.  

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

English summative test   

validity 

reliability  

item analysis 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2311
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:1tsemiun@yahoo.co.id
mailto:2%20densianaluruk@gmail.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


134 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

Studies in the area of evaluation had been conducted by scholars (Cang & Wu, 2012; Abedi, 
2009; Munoz, et al., 2003) on different focuses on teaching and learning English as a foreign 
language, particularly in countries of non-native speakers of English. Abedi (2009) had conducted 
research to evaluate assessments for English Language Learning (ELL) students in Turkey. He 
focused on evaluating language factors based on the assumption that when instructional materials 
contained complex linguistic structures, ELL students might face serious difficulties in 
understanding instruction of the test. The result revealed that such unnecessary linguistic complexity 
seems to affect the validity and reliability of the assessment that lead to the low quality of ELL 
outcomes. So, a good language is very important to gain a good quality of a test and certainly to 
avoid frustration for the students as the test takers. The sample size of the study presumably could 
affect validity and reliability too. Chang and Wu (2012) investigated the validity and reliability of 
teacher assessment under a web-based portfolio assessment environment. They reported some 
results of web-based portofolio teacher assessments i.e. (1) achieved an acceptable level of 
reliability; showed a strong level of inter-rater reliability and inner-rater reliability regarded as a 
reliable assessment method;  (2) demonstrated an acceptable level of validity; (3) and the portfolio 
scores were highly consistent with the students’ end-of-course examination scores, implying that 
web-based portfolio teacher assessment was a valid assessment method. Based on the results, they 
confirmed that the smaller sample size might have negative influences on the analysis results.  
Similarly, Munoz et al. (2003), in their study had acknowledged that the limited number of samples 
impacted on the less validity of the test.  

In the field of English Language Teaching, especially in the Indonesian context, there were 
valuable studies investigating tests made by English teachers.  Primadani (2013) and Ratnafuri 
(2011) analyzed an English mid-term test and a final test. Both studies revealed that the quality of 
the tests were not so good due to the reason that the teachers did not follow the rules in how to 
develop test items which resulted with low quality of the test. Furwana (2019) analyzed the validity 
and reliability of teacher-made English Summative test in a vocational high school located in 
Palopo. The result revealed that the teacher made test had good quality regarding content validity 
and reliability. Another study conducted by Sugianto (2017) was focused on analyzing an English 
Summative test for senior high school in Palangkaraya. The result showed that the English 
Summative test was valid and reliable which was proven statistically. To summarize, the valuable 
studies presented above reported different results on teacher-made tests because constructing a test 
also related to the competence of the test developers. This indicated that teachers were lack of 
conceptual assessment tools or the practical skills to investigate or use tests (Fulcher, 2012). The test 
developers should have been knowledgeable with the issue of constructing a good test. It is 
important because students’ competence will not be reflected truly if the test cannot function 
properly. 

Different from the previous studies, the present study was conducted in Kupang, the capital city 
of East Nusa Tenggara Province, where the development of education is still the main concern of the 
government as the former Minister of Education and Culture Muhadjir Effendy (Seo & Setiawan, 
2018) said that education in East Nusa Tenggara was the third lowest nationally, after Papua and 
West Papua. This study highlighted teachers’ role in assessing students’ achievement through an 
English Summative test. It was assumed that the result might reveal different outcomes for the 
quality of the test. The investigation of quality was narrowed to the quality of an English Summative 
test constructed by an EFL teacher in a public junior high school in Kupang. The goal was to 
determine if the English Summative test was a reliable and valid measure of students’ achievement.  
The present study investigated the content validity, reliability, item validity including item difficulty, 
item discrimination, and distracters effectiveness of the teacher-made English Summative test. By 
investigating the quality of the test, the EFL teacher would be informed and able to do a self-
reflection whether the English Summative test had met good quality, or whether the teacher had 
created a good language test or vice versa. If the test was valid and reliable, the test was useful and 
truly reflecting the competence of students. In addition, the result of item validity, item 
discrimination, item difficulty, and effectiveness of distracters could help the EFL teacher to see 
items that worked well. 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 135 
 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

2. Research Method 

This research was a descriptive evaluative research to describe and evaluate the quality of an 
English Summative test constructed by an EFL teacher in a public junior high school located in 
Kupang. This research used documentation to collect the data such as an English summative test, a 
blueprint, an English syllabus, and students’ answer sheets. The data analyses were separated into 
several parts. First, content analysis was done for revealing the content validity of the test. Within 
this research, content analysis was defined as the analysis by matching the content of items or 
questions in the test with the English syllabus used, and the table specification or the blueprint of the 
test to examine if each item measured the content or objective of the course or unit being taught. 
Later the proportion of items that measured an indicator would be calculated into percentage. The 
following considerations were taken as the content review judgments: (1) how appropriate the items 
are, (2) how complete the item samples are, (3) and the way the items assess the content (Mindes, 
2003). Third, the test reliability was done by applying the Kuder-Richardson’s formula (K-R20) to 
obtain inter-item based reliability value. The result of reliability coefficient was interpreted based on 
interpretation of Nunnally (1978). Fourth, item validity, item difficulty, item discrimination, and 
distracter effectiveness were analyzed by the means of ITEMAN 3.0 software. The test items were 
listed according to their degrees of validity (Arikunto, 2013), difficulty and discrimination (Salwa, 
2012). Meanwhile, to reveal the effectiveness of distracters, DiBattista & Kurzama (2011) definition 
was used. A properly functioning distracter was defined as a distracter that had been chosen by at 
least 5% of the students. If no student chose the distracter, the distracter could not perform well, and 
that should be removed. 

3. Findings and Discussion 

The quality of test could be seen through the validity and reliability of the test. Within the test, 
the quality of the English Summative test of grade VII was evaluated through content validity, 
reliability, and item quality concerning item difficulty, item discrimination, item distracter and item 
validity.  

3.1. Content Validity 

By relying on the content analysis and review judgment, content validity was analyzed. The 
finding of content validity of English Summative test of grade VII signified that the test had a high 
content validity as represented in Table 1. 

Table 1 displayed the distribution of the items which were in line with the curriculum. 50 items 
in the test had relevance to the indicators and/or the basic competence meaning that the test had 
100% agreement with the curriculum. The findings of the test signified that it was only constructed 
to measure reading and writing skills as informed by the teacher. The test missed listening and 
speaking skills due to practical reasons such as time allotment, administration, and cost.  

The findings revealed that the test had high content validity. It had 100% agreement with the 
curriculum. Thus, the test had been constructed with representative samples of materials measured 
by proper indicators. The English Summative test of grade VII showed high content validity which 
meant the test was constructed properly. In order to have high content validity, a test should be able 
to represent the materials given during teaching and learning process in a settled period 
(Djiwandono, 2011). The materials used were short functional texts and monolog essays. The 
reading skill such as reading comprehension was appropriate to be measured by multiple-choice 
form. On the contrary, the writing skill was not appropriate to be measured through multiple-choice 
form. Brown (2004) asserted that writing was a productive skill and it was best assessed by the 
product made by the students. It was hard to define students’ writing performance by multiple 
choice. It would be better if the teacher had another type of test to assess students’ writing 
performance.  

 

 

 



136 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

Table 1.  Content validity of the test 

Basic Competence Indicators Test Item % 

Reading 
1. Responding to the 

meaning contained 

in a short functional 
written text  
accurately  

Given a shopping list, students determine the communicative goal 
precisely 

1 
 

2% 

Provided a greeting card, students determine the implied 
information  accurately 

2, 3 4% 

Presented a greeting card, students determine the implicit  
information in the text clearly 

4,5,6,8 8% 

Given a greeting card, students determine the word meaning 
(antonym) correctly 

7 2% 

Provided an announcement, students determine the general 
description of the text correctly 

9,17 4% 

Presented an announcement, students determine the certain 
information in the text accurately 

10,11,12, 
18 

8% 

Given an announcement, students determine the word meaning 
(synonym) correctly 

13 2% 

Provided a short massage, students determine the certain 
information in the text clearly 

14 2% 

Presented a short massage, students determine the word meaning 
(synonym) accurately 

15 2% 

Given a short massage, students determine the referent precisely 16 2% 

2. Responding to the 

meaning and 
rhetorical steps of 
descriptive/procedur
e texts accurately 

Provided a descriptive text, students determine the general picture 

appropriately 

26 2% 

Presented a descriptive text, students determine the communicative 
goal precisely 

19,24 4% 

Given a descriptive text, students determine the certain information 

in the text correctly 

20, 27, 28, 

29 

8% 

Presented a descriptive text, students determine the main idea of 
the paragraph correctly 

21 2% 

Given a descriptive text, students determine the referent accurately 22, 30 4% 

Provided a descriptive text, students determine the word meaning 
(synonym) correctly 

23, 25 4% 

Presented a procedure text, students determine the communicative 
goal precisely 

31 2% 

Given a procedure text, students determine the certain information 
in the text accurately 

32, 33, 34, 
35,36, 37, 
38, 39, 40 

18% 

Writing 
1. Expressing meaning 

in short functional 
written text by 
using a variety of 
written languages 
accurately 
 

Provided jumbled words, students can arrange these words into an 

announcement 

41 2% 

Given jumbled words, students can arrange these words into a 
greeting 

42 2% 

2. Expressing the 
meaning and 
rhetorical steps in a 
short essay 
(descriptive/procedu
re text) by using a 
variety of written 
languages accurately 

Presented a few sentences, students can arrange these sentences 

into a coherent descriptive text 

43 2% 

Given a few sentences, students can arrange these sentences into a 
coherent descriptive text 

44 2% 

Given an incomplete descriptive text, students can complete the 

text with the correct nouns and verbs.  

45, 46, 47 6% 

Provided an incomplete procedure text, students can complete the 
text with the appropriate verbs. 

48, 49, 50 6% 

 

The result of this present study was in harmony with the result reported by Widowati (2011), 
Husna (2012), Haryudin (2015), Fathoni (2017), Nugrahanto, et al. (2018) and Furwana (2019). 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 137 
 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

Thus, teacher-made tests had evidence indicating the right selection of samples in course materials 
to reveal high content validity. According to Rudner & Schafer (2002), teacher-made tests had the 
advantage of being directly related to the content already taught in the classroom. The content of 
tests would be based directly on a detailed course syllabus, books, and other materials used in the 
classroom. However, in contrast to the result of the present study, Ratnafuri’s study (2011) reported 
moderate content validity of the English Final test, Sugianto (2011) asserted 46% content validity of 
the English Formative test, Wulandari (2014) stated that the English Summative Test was 51% valid 
in content, and Setiyana’s research (2016) revealed that the validity of the English Summative test 
was not good since the percentage in content validity was below 73%. A teacher-made test could 
contain high content validity. Yet, if the content validity was low or moderate then it was 
presumably related to the competence and/or experience of the test developers in constructing the 
tests.  

3.2. Reliability 

The reliability of the test was assessed by evaluating the internal consistency of the test. Based on 
the inter-item based reliability analysis, it revealed that the reliability coefficient for the test was at 
.820 so the test was reliable and considered very good for a classroom test. However, there were 
some items to be revised to maximize the reliability of the tests.  

The result was in harmony with the result of Primadani (2013) and Haryudin (2015). The high 
reliability of the test was due to the number of items which were crucial for test reliability. The 
teacher-made English summative test of grade VII contained 50 items, so that the test was 
considered as a long test. According to Griswold (1990) carefully written tests with an adequate 
number of items usually produce high reliability since they usually provide a representative sample 
of the behavior being measured. In this regard, Griswold (1990) also said that long tests can make 
three things to help maintain validity. Firstly, they increase the amount of content that the students 
must address, ensuring a more accurate picture of student knowledge. Secondly, long tests 
counteract the effects of faulty items by providing a greater number of better items. Third, long tests 
reduce the impact of student guessing. 

The result of high reliability could be as a result of students who had learned well or because the 
students remembered the materials given during the instruction. It also could be interpreted that the 
students had good skills in reading since many students could score high in the test. However, the 
result of reliability could not be the basis of interpreting students’ writing skills. 

3.3. Item Analysis 

 Each conclusion of item difficulty, item discrimination, item distracter, and item validity is 
provided in Table 2, Table 3, Figure 1, and Table 4. 

Table 2.  The distribution of classified difficulty index 

Range of Difficulty Index Category Item 
p = 1.00 Very easy 1 Item 

.70 < p ≤ 1.00 Easy 33 Items 

.30 < p ≤ .70 Moderate 15 Items 

.00 < p ≤ .30 Difficult 1 Items 
p = .00 Very difficult 0 Item 

 

Item difficulty analysis revealed some results as can be seen in Table 2.  First, one item or 2% of 
the items had the index of difficulty 1.00 (p = 1.00) which meant this item was very easy to be 
solved by the examinees. So, this item should be removed. Second, 33 items or 66% of the whole 
items had the index of difficulty .70 < p ≤ 1.00. These items were considered easy and possible to be 
retained. Third, 15 items or 30% of the whole items had the index of difficulty .30 < p ≤ .70, these 
items were moderate. Due to this fact, the items were also possible to be retained. Fourth, an item or 
2% of the whole items was considered difficult because the index difficulty was .00 < p ≤ .30. 
However, this item can still be retained. 



138 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

The findings of item analysis revealed that there were many easy items compared to moderate 
items. The easy items lead to the interpretation that the items were not changeling for the students 
hence they could successfully answer the questions. Another interpretation of the findings was the 
teacher might already give the materials during the instruction. They could answer correctly because 
they already remembered the answers. There was also the last interpretation, i.e., there were many 
items that looked easy due to the reason that there were also many good students. As labeled with 
accreditation A, this school has become a favorite school in Kupang. To be selected as students in 
this school, the candidates should follow a placement test. They, who were selected, passed the 
criterion score of the placement test and they had good or high index grade value of elementary 
national examination. Therefore, most of the students were good students academically.  

Table 3.  The distribution of classified discrimination index 

Range of Discrimination Index Category Item 
.40 and above Very good 17 Items 

.30 – .39 Good 13 Items 

.20 – .29 Sufficient 7 Items 
.19 and below Poor 13 Items 

 

Item discrimination analysis, as shown in Table 3, showed that out of 50 items in the test, there 
were 17 items or 34% items which were very good in discriminating the performance of the 
examinees. Meanwhile, 13 items or 26% items could discriminate up and low group of the 
examinees yet these items were not as good as the previous 17 items. Next, 7 items or 14% items 
only had sufficient discrimination power, while 13 items or 26% items could not discriminate the 
performance of the examinees at all. Thus, these sufficient and poor items should be reconsidered.  

In the test, there were many items with good discrimination power than poor discrimination 
power. Although the items were easy, the items still had good discrimination power. Therefore, it 
could be interpreted that the items looked easy because there were many good students involved in 
the present study not because the items were below their level of competence. However, it was a 
need to conduct another study to find out the characteristics of the students involved in the present 
study.  

 

 

Fig. 1.    The distribution of distracters within the test 

Figure 1 presents summaries of the findings. The result of distracters analysis asserted that all 
distracters in item number 10, 11, 12, 29, 37, 38, and 50 were not selected at all. The distracters 
should be removed because the distracters did not contribute to the questions’ discriminatory ability. 
Next, 22% items (3, 8, 9, 14, 21, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39, and 40) had only one functional distracter and 
26% items (1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 22, 28, 33, 36, 43, 44, 48, and 49) had two functional distracters. In these 
cases, the distracters were reconsidered or replaced with better ones. And, 38% items (4, 7, 13, 15, 
17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 41, 42, 45, 46, and 47) had good alternative answers. Hence, 
all three items can lure the examinees who did not have much information related to the questions.  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 139 
 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

The analysis showed that there were many effective distracters as well as ineffective distracters 
within 50 items. The test for grade VII students had 19 items in which all the distracters could work 
effectively. When all the distracters could function effectively, it could be assumed that the materials 
tested by the items were new or never be given to students during the instruction. 

Table 4.  The Distribution of classified validity index 

Range of Item Validity Category Item 
.81 – 1.00 Highly valid 1 item 
.61 - .80 Valid 11 items 
.41 - .60 Adequately valid 21 items 

.21 - .40 Lees valid 11 items 

.00 - .20 Poorly valid 6 items 

 

The validity of 50 items (Table 4) showed that out of the 50 items there were 6 items (10, 13, 20, 
34, 35, and 38) that should be removed, and 11 items (3, 8, 11, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 41, 49, and 50) 
that should be revised. The rest items could be accepted because they were considered as valid 
items. Item validity of the test also showed that the number of valid items was greater than the 
number of invalid items. The valid items had contributed to the reliability of the tests and to 
maximize the test reliability, invalid items should be removed. 

4. Conclusion 

The English Summative test to test the achievement of the grade VII students was categorized as 
a good test, to be specifically presented next. First, in terms of content validity, the test had a high 
content validity, where 50 items (100%) had an agreement with the curriculum. Second, in terms of 
reliability criteria, the English Summative test showed reliability coefficient value at .820 indicating 
that the test was good for a classroom test. Third, in terms of difficulty level, the test was mostly 
constructed by easy items. The items looked easy presumably because the students were good 
academically or because the same materials had already been given during teaching and learning 
instruction. For the discrimination index result, most of the items could discriminate between 
students who were good and students who were weak. Next, in the case of the item distracter it was 
concluded that most distracters or alternative answers were able to perform well in the test. Last, the 
item validity of the test showed that the numbers of valid items were greater than the number of 
invalid items. The result of the present study indicated that it was important for the teacher to 
construct an appropriate test. The test used was aimed at measuring the reading and writing skills as 
intended by the teacher. However, the 10 items used to measure a writing skill might be reliable but 
it was not a valid test of the writing skill. Therefore, it is a need for the teacher to understand the 
form of test that appropriately measures the writing skill of the students. 

For future researchers who want to conduct research on the same topic, it is suggested to involve 
experts to validate content validity. The judgments of each item need carefully checked in order to 
make the relevance of each item with the curriculum more precise. In order to reveal more 
accurately validity results, it is suggested to examine not only content validity but also face and 
construct validity to give wider views in regard to the appropriateness of the tests. Last, it will be 
better if future studies also observe the characteristics of the students. The characteristics of the 
students will help in interpreting the findings. 

 

References   

Abedi, J. (2009). Validity of assessments for English language learning students in a national/international 

context. ESE, 16, 167-183. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Validity-of-assessments-for-English-

Language-in-a-Abedi/0351. Accesed 24 July 2020. 

Arikunto, S. (2013). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan (2nd ed.). Jakarta: Paragonatama Jaya. 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Validity-of-assessments-for-English-Language-in-a-Abedi/0351
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Validity-of-assessments-for-English-Language-in-a-Abedi/0351


140 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Designing and developing useful 

language tests. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment. Principles and classroom practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson 

Education, Inc. 

Chang, C.-C., & Wu, B.-H. (2012). Is teacher assessment reliable or valid for high school students under a 

web-based portfolio environment? Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 265–278. 

https://www.ds.unipi.gr/et&s/journals/15_4/23.pdf. Accesed 24 July 2020. 

DiBattista, D., & Kurzawa, L. (2011). Examination of the quality of multiple-choice items on classroom 

tests. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2). 

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.4  

Djiwandono, S. (2011). Tes bahasa. Pengangan bagi pengajar bahasa (2nd ed.). Jakarta: PT. Indeks Jakarta. 

Fathoni. (2017). An analysis on content validity of English summative test items of second grade students at 

MTsN Kalijambe in the academic year 2015/2016. State Islamic Institute of Surakarta.    

Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 

113-132. https://doi.org/1080/15434303.2011.642041 

Furwana, D. (2019). Validity and reliability of teacher-made English summative test at second grade of 

vocational high school 2 Palopo. Journal of Language and Literature, 13(2), 113-122. 

https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v13i2.18967 

Griswold, P. A. (1990). Assessing relevance and reliability to improve the quality of teacher-made tests. 

NASSP Bulletin, 76, 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659007452305  

Haryudin, A. (2015). Validity and reliability of English summative tests at junior high school in West 

Bandung. Jurnal Ilmiah P2P STKIP Siliwangi, 2(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.22460/p2m.v2i1p77-

90.167 

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Husna, H. H. (2012). An analysis of English summative test for 6th grade students in three public elementary 

schools in Udanawu District, Blitar Regency. State University of Malang. 

Iliya, A. (2014). Formative and summative assessment in educational enterprise. Journal of Education and 

Practice, 5(20), 111-117. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/14252. Accessed 24 

July 2020. 

Mindes, G. (2003). Assessing young children (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 

Munoz, A., Alvarez, M., Casals, S., Gaviria S., & Palacio, M. (2003). Validation of an oral assessment tool 

for classroom use. Columbian Applied Linguistics Journal, 5(5), 139-157. 

https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.186 

Nugrahanto, A., Winarsih, D., & Farikah. (2018). The content validity of the summative test items of English 

for the tenth graders of SMA Negeri 1 Magelang in the school year 2015/2016. Journal of Research on 

Applied Linguistics Language and Language Teaching, 1(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.31002/jrlt.v1i1.188 

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGrow-Hill Contemporary. 

Primadani, A. E. (2013). An analysis of a midterm English test of the 7th grade accelerated class at SMPN 3 

Malang. State University of Malang.  

Qu, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). The analysis of summative assessment and formative assessment and their roles 

in college English assessment system. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(2), 335-339. 

https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.2.335-339  

Ratnafuri, W. F. (2011). An analysis of the teacher-made English test in the final test of the 2nd semester of 

2010/2011 of the first year students of SMPN 1 Kauman, Tulungagung. State University of Malang. 

Rudner, L., & W. Schafer. (2002). What teachers need to know about assessment. Washington, DC: National 

Education Association. 

https://www.ds.unipi.gr/et&s/journals/15_4/23.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.4
https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041
https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v13i2.18967
https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659007452305
http://e-journal.stkipsiliwangi.ac.id/index.php/p2m/article/view/167
http://e-journal.stkipsiliwangi.ac.id/index.php/p2m/article/view/167
https://doi.org/10.22460/p2m.v2i1p77-90.167
https://doi.org/10.22460/p2m.v2i1p77-90.167
https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/14252
https://doi.org/10.31002/jrlt.v1i1.188


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 141 
 Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 133-141 

 Semiun and Luruk (The quality of an English summative test...) 

Salwa, A. (2012). The validity, reliability, level of difficulty and appropriateness of curriculum of the English 

test. Diponegoro University. 

Seo J., & Setiawan, K. (2018). Menteri Muhadjir Effendy: Pendidikan di NTT urutan 2 terbawah. Tempo.Co. 

https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1048094. Accessed 25 July 2020. 

Setiyana, R. (2016). Analysis of summative tests for English. English Education Journal, 7(4), 433-447. 

http://www.jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/EEJ/article/view/5525. Accesed 25 July 2020. 

Sugianto, A. (2017) Validity and reliability of English summative test for senior high school. Indonesian EFL 

Journal: Journal of ELT, Linguistics, and Literature, 3(2), 22-38. 

http://ejournal.kopertais4.or.id/mataraman/index.php/efi/article/view/3191. Accessed 24 July 2020. 

Sugianto, A. (2011) Analysis of validity and reliability of English formative tests. Journal of English as a 

Foreign Language, 1(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v1i2.193  

Widowati, D. H. (2011). Item analysis on a teacher-made try-out test of UAN 2010/2011 of junior high 

schools in Malang. State University of Malang.  

Wulandari A. (2014). An analysis on the content validity of the summative test items at the even semester of 
the second grade; a case study of MTs Al-Amanah. Syarif Hidayahtullah State Islamic University. 

 

 

  

https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1048094
http://www.jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/EEJ/article/view/5525
https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v1i2.193

