49 

 

 

 

 

DIFFERENCES OF PROPORTION OF DISTRACTORS 

NUMBERS OF ECONOMIC QUESTION ITEM FOR 

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASS XI IN BEKASI CITY 
 

Roro Ernawati Raden 

roro.erns@gmail.com 

Universitas Negeri Jakarta 

Supriyati, Yetti 

y_supriyati@yahoo.com 

Universitas Negeri Jakarta 

Dudung, Agus 

agusdudung65@gmail.com 

Universitas Negeri Jakarta 

 

ABSTRAK 
The purpose of this research to measure the differences of distractors of proportion number in 
economic question item. This research was an experiment in a senior high school in Bekasi. The 

sample of the research was obtained technically cluster random sampling. Data was analyzed by one 

way analyzed of variance (ANOVA) 3 x 1 treatment by level design. The results of this research is 

rejected hypothesis based on ANOVA number significant (0.127) higher than degree freedom (0.005). 
The conclution is distractors  proportion two, distractors  proportion three, and distractors  proportion 

four have same proportion that’s no different absolutely. The results of the reseach recommended that 

the teacher used distractors two, distractors three, and distractors four in the learn process.and paid 

attention to teacher competency for the readiness of student. 
 

Keywords: distractors proportion number, multiple choices, distractors items, economic items, 

economic education and teaching of economics, design of experiments, data collection, 

sampling methods, eduacation 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Item difficulty is the proportion of examinees answer the question correctly, 

with lower values reflect more difficult questions. All distractors with a choice 

frequency of <5% were identified. We further computed the discriminating power 

of all distractors and identified distractors with positive discriminating power (non-

functioning distractors)(Marie, 2009). 

The hesitation of students in determine the correct answer is affected by 

difficulty items level that students choose the distractors. The evaluation test is 

multiple choice because easy and fast for the score, objective, easy analysis, 

involve the comphrehensive materials in test, able to measure the low 

competencies until high competencies (Musmuliadi, 2009). 

Of further concern is the high proportion of items that did not have any 

functioning distractors (12.3%). These items would inevitably have high item 

difficulty statistics (>.90) with almost all students getting the items correct. When 

absolute pass scores are used and set at a fixed percentage (i.e., 50%), as they are in 

the institution where these tests were administered, such a high proportion of easy 

items likely results in many borderline candidates passing who should not(Marie, 

2009). 

Item analysis in answer proportion estimation to assess the  difficulty index 

and discrimination of questions quality. The difference of answer proportion show 



 

50 JISAE. Volume 4 Number 1 February 2018. Copyright © Ikacana Publisher | ISSN: 2442-4919 | E-ISSN 2597-8934 
 

 

 

 

 

number the correct answers of all answers. Difficulty index will be declared in 

various kinds. One of kinds is correct answer (Naga, 2012). 

Distractors play a vital role for the process of multiplechoice testing, in that 

good quality distractors ensure that the outcome of the tests provides more credible 

and objective picture of the knowledge of the testees involved. On the other hand, 

poor distractors would not contribute much to the accuracy of the assessment as 

obvious or too easy distractors will pose no challenge to the students and as a 

result, will not be able to distinguish high performing from low performing 

learners(Mkrtchyan, 2011). 

The MC items on 13 of the 16 tests had four options, and on the remaining 

tests, they had five. Therefore, there were 3819 distractors in the data set, and many 

were flawed. More than one-third (37.3%) of the distractors were flawed because 

they were chosen by less than 5% of examinees(Kurzawa, 2011). 

Analyzing the distractors (incorrect alternatives) is done to determine their 

relative usefulness in each item. Items need to be modified if students consistently 

fail to select certain distractors. Such alternatives are probably implausible and 

therefore of little use as decoys(Sanju, 2014). 

Three-option items have also been recommended in the literature because of 

their ease of preparation as these require fewer distractors, take up less space, 

require less reading time, and decrease time for item development and 

administration(Rashmi, 2008). 

Based on options three and penalty score technic research have high of 

realibility. Options three more efficient by processing time aspect and make of 

distractor aspect. While of penalty score technic, students more scared when the 

answer is wrong and get punishment so the score technic have a  high of 

realibility(Bhakti, 2015). 

Another part of item question analysis is measure about number of correct 

answer items and wrong answer items that evaluate for arrangement the continuous 

items questions when we are found one of items can not reflection the students 

competency. 

 Based on the earlier research at SMAN 1 Bekasi, the result of proportion 

score of distractors four is 9,35%, Standard Deviation (SD) is 2,89 and avarege 

score is 62,33 that moderate category of difficulty level.  The lowest score is 20 

and highest score is 93,33 of 15 questions. The early research at SMA PGRI 1 

Bekasi show on two distractors is 8.90% of proportion, deviation standard is 1.68 

and avarege score 59,33% that lower category. The lowest score is 33 and highest 

score is 80 of 15 questions. Differences proportion result both of distractors two 

and distractors four are proportion score of distractors four higher than proportion 

score of distractors two. 

As for characteristic of economic subjects is economic science start from a 

fact or real economic indication, economic science develop the theories to 

description of a fact rationally. and generally in analysis for economic science is 

method of problem solve(Norani, 2012). 

Based on the descriptions above then need do a research about differences of 

distractors numbers on economic items that know the differences of proportion of 

each items on multiple choices questions. 



51 

 

 

 

 

 

METHOD 
The research is quantitative research use experiment method of treatment by 

level 3 x 1 design on table 3.1. Compare the proportion of distractors numbers of 

each items.     

Consideration of choose the design is capability to measure the difference 

proportion of distractors numbers on economic items questions. Sample in this 

research use cluster random samplingtechnic. There are 600 students for all 

distractors sample and 200 students of each distractors sample. 

Table-1. Research Design 

Distractor 

Two Three Four 
X1 X2 X3 

                         Source: Data of research design treatment 3 x 1 years 2017   
 Population target are students grade 11 in senior high school major social 

science at Bekasi city in study year 2017/2018. Sample are 40 distractors items of 

200 students of each distractors. Then, count the proportion score of 600 students 

base on the numbers of distractors. 40 items as respondents score will analysis by 

statistic test and hypotesis test.  

Cluster Random Sampling on Bachtiar research are categorize age and gender, 

not use the social level or area criteria. The reason of Categorize are age and 

gender that people of 30 – 70 ages above interest to the Khazanah 

program(Bachtiar, 2015). 

Three kinds of data collected are below: (1) data of differences proportion of 

distractors numbers four in economic items questions by result of distractor four 

economic items test, (2) data of differences proportion of distractors numbers three 

in economic items questions by result of distractor three economic items test, (3) 

data of differences proportion of distractors numbers two in economic items 

questions by result of distractor two economic items test. 

Data collected by develop an economic questions instrument in multiple 

choices. Five matters important that are (1) arrange the construct definition, (2) 

arrange the operational definition, (3) arrange the indicator of test base on each 

characteristic test, (4) arrange the items test, and (5) validity test of 20 experts, 

validity of economic experts, validity of empiric by point biserial correlation and 

realibility by KR-20.  

Data are process with descriptive statistic and statistic requirements test that 

are normalitas test; homogeneity test, statistic test, hypothesis tes. Normality test 

by Liliefors test on α = 0,05. Homogeneity test by Bartlett test on α = 0,05, db = k 

– 1(Sudjana, 2009). Hypothesis test by varians analysis (ANAVA) one way to 

know the significant of differences distractors of proportion numbers in economic 

items by dichotomous test of students grade 11 social science. 

 

 

 

 

 



 

52 JISAE. Volume 4 Number 1 February 2018. Copyright © Ikacana Publisher | ISSN: 2442-4919 | E-ISSN 2597-8934 
 

 

 

 

 

RESULT 
Result the differences of distractors of proportion numbers economic items by 

40 items test of 200 students of each distractors that show in table . 

 

Table-2. Resume Score of Distractors Proportion Numbers Economic Items in All 

Experiment Groups Base on Descriptive Statistic Scale 

Note 
Distractor 
Distractor 2 (X1) Distractor 3 (X2) Distractor 4 

(X3) 

N 40 40 40 
Mean 50,162 38,8375 48.075 
Std.Dev 28,881 23,5536 27,5345 
Minimum 4 6 2 
Maximum 87 91 97 

 Source: : Data of descriptive statistic scale years 2017  
Normality Test 

Normality test of distractors two of proportion data is |S(zi) - F(zi)| 0,12731 as 

high score. Lo = 0.12731 and Ltable 0.1401. Lo < Ltable then Ho is accepted. The 

conclusion is data from normal distribution population. 

Normality test of distractors three proportion data is |S(zi) - F(zi)| 0,12947 as 

high score. Lo = 0,12947 and Ltable 0.1401. Lo < Ltable then Ho is accept. The 

conclusion is data from normal distribution population. 

Normality test of distractors three proportion data is |S(zi) - F(zi)| 0,12950 as 

high score. Lo = 0.12950 and Ltable 0.1401. Lo < Ltable then Ho is accept. The 

conclusion is data from normal distribution population. 
 

Homogenity Test 

Table-3. Homogenity Test Support 

Sample 

Group 
Dk Si² Log Si² dk. Si² dk.Log Si²  

X1 39 834.1 2.92 
32529.6

9 113.9 

X2 39 554.2 2.74 
21613.9

4 107.0 

X3 39 758.1 2.88 
29567.7

8 112.3 

Σ 117 2146.4   
83711.4

1 333.2 

                               Source:Data of homogeneity test analysis years 2017 
 

S² is 117, logarithm price of varian combined and price a Bartlet (B) is 

333,9881, then Chi Square score (Xo) is 1,72. Test criteria is Xcount<Xtable then 

Hcount is accept. Xcount=1,72 and Xtable=5,99. The conclusion is three of groups have 

homogeneous varians. 

Hypothesis Test 



53 

 

 

 

 

The hypothesis test by varians analysis (ANOVA) one way to know differences 

of distractors numbers of proportion in economic items questions. 

 

Table-4. Result Resume of ANOVA by F test about differences of distractors 

numbers proportion in economic items questions 

Source 
Square 

Total 
Freedom 

Degre 
Variety Fo Α Ftab 

1. X between 

(X1,X2,X3) 
2905.929 2 1452.965 

2.03 0,05 3,07 
2. Galat 83733.66 117 715.6723 

Total 86639.59 119     

        Source:Data of hypothesis test analysis years 2017  
 

Discussion of the result are below. 

a Proportion of Distractor Two Higher Than Proportion of Distractor Three 
Result of hypothesis-1 by treatment group P is Fo= 2.03 < Ftab(α=0,05) =3,07 

then Ho is accepted. Does not found the significant difference of distcrators two of 

proportion (X1) and distcrators three of proportion (X2). The research is originality 

by researcher and result of anava does not significant. Therefor, can not continuous 

test to know the higher both of group. 

b Proportion of Distractor Three Higher Than Proportion of Distractor 
Four 

Result of hypothesis-2 by treatment group P is Fo= 2.03 < Ftab(α=0,05) =3,07 

then Ho is accepted. Does not found the significant difference of distcrators three 

of proportion (X2) and distcrators four of proportion (X3). The research is 

originality by researcher and result of anava does not significant. Therefor, can not 

continuous test to know the higher both of group. 

c Proportion of Distractor Two Higher Than Proportion of Distractor Four 
Result of hypothesis-3 by treatment group P is Fo= 2.03 < Ftab(α=0,05) =3,07 

then Ho is accepted. Does not found the significant difference of distcrators two of 

proportion (X1) and distcrators four of proportion (X3). The research is originality 

by researcher and result of anava does not significant. Therefor, can not continuous 

test to know the higher both of group. 

Research is describe the data not support of hypothesis truth. The reasons are 

below: 

First, total of correct answer that choose by responden will effect to π or 

proportion score. According to Daali theory is more and more of correct answer 

then π will higher more, and items is not difficult. The less of correct answer,  then 

π will be lower, and items is difficult more. 

The strongest rationale for recommendation is 3-option format is that there is 

no significant change in the psychometric properties of this format when compared 

with the 4-option and 5-option formats(Rashmi, 2008). 

Two, limitations of researcher in control the teacher competency that support of 

research in deliver the matters to students, then student readiness in finish the 

questions items is effected by matters control. Professional teacher is determinant 

factor in high quality education process(Soleh, 2009). 

Students readiness in finish the distractors three have a tendency to guessing 



 

54 JISAE. Volume 4 Number 1 February 2018. Copyright © Ikacana Publisher | ISSN: 2442-4919 | E-ISSN 2597-8934 
 

 

 

 

 

the correct answer, some answers of students is same that become limititation of 

researcher in control the teacher competency that support of research in deliver the 

matters to students. Teacher less attention in students understanding of matters. 

Teachers less attention of students understanding the matters, then students get 

difficult to choose the correct answer. Tend of students is guessing the answer 

randomly. As an opinion of Kuaseri is “distractors is incorrect answer, but posibble 

for someone get distract to choose its when does not understand of matters 

well”(Suprananto, 2012). Students does not understand the matters well, then 

easily to choose distractor, although distractor is lower level. Base on the data both 

of distractors two of proportion and distractors three of proportion has no 

significant different. 

Find uncontrolled condition that teachers does not know of students understand 

the matters in test. Some students and teachers not familiar with HOTS test. Tend 

of the condition is effect by less effective communication between teachers and 

students, then students not ready do the test and choose the incorrect answer like 

guessing. 

Martinis Yamin theory that professional teacher competent are:1) mastery of 

subject matters, 2) mastery and appreciation the foundation and educational 

concept and teacher, 3) mastery of educational process, teacher and student 

learn(Yamin, 2009). 

The recommendation is teacher need increase of competence to teach and good 

communication with students, then increase of students knowledge. Furthermore, 

need to apply other form score technic beside of correct score technic, like penalty 

score and rewardscore. 

As the researh by Yoga Budi Bhakti title of “Effect of Alternative Answer 

Number dan Score Technic to Test Reliability” that score of multiple choice test by 

penalty score technic and reward score technic. Penalty score technic of multiple 

choice that higher realibility than reward technic score. The cause is penalty score 

technic that’s count total of wrong answer as punishment that reduction of score, 

with this score studnets are more careful do the test, then realibility of test will 

increase. Students does not understands of test don’t want answer because worried 

the answer will be wrong and reduce the score(Bhakti, 2015). 

Both of distractors two of proportion and distractors three of proportion has no 

significant different. The effect by teacher competence to students readiness and 

guessing the behavior of students. Expected the teachers have professionalism and 

increase of effective communication to students. Furthermore, relevance of score 

technic base on student's condition, like are penalty score and reward score, then 

students are more careful to choose the right answer and not easily to choose the 

available distractors. Then minimize of guessing behavior in test. 

 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 
Proportion of distractors two equals with proportion of distractors three, the 

result is anava test Fcount (2,03) lower than Ftable (3,07). Therefor, not continuous 

test to know the higher both of groups. Proportion of distractors three equals with 

proportion of distractors four, the result is anava test Fcount (2,03) lower than 

Ftable (3,07). Therefor, not continuous test to know the higher both of groups. 



55 

 

 

 

 

Proportion of distractors two equals with proportion of distractors four, the result is 

anava test Fcount (2,03) lower than Ftable (3,07). Therefor, not continuous test to 

know the higher both of groups. 

The conclusion is no differences between proportion of distractors two, 

proportion of distractors three, and proportions of distractor four. The research is 

novelty the proportion of distractors numbers in economic items grade 11 base on 

Bloom level of knowledge from C2, C3, C4, C5, dan C6. 

Recommendation for teacher, teacher able to use the economic items questions 

by distractors two, distractors three, and distractors four and teacher need to pay 

attention the students understanding of economic subject and students are 

accustomed to understand the kinds of economic questionts items base on current 

standards for senior high school level. Recommendation for principle, principal do 

supervision in schools to increase of teacher competence. Recommendation for 

head of education office, the education office of Bekasi city held training to 

improve the quality of teachers in teaching competence and write manuscript of 

economics. Recommendation for other reasearcs, be expected able to related 

review of anothers factors such as score technic of teacher competence and others 

even related to the factor of students' ability to analysis. 

 

REFFERENCES 

Bachtiar, M.A., 2015. The effect of Khazanah program in trans7 on improving 

religious understanding of the community RT 02 RW 05 Berbek Village 

Waru subdistrict. Suarabaya: The Sunan Ampel Institute of Islamic Religion 

Surabaya. 

Bhakti, Y.B., 2015. Influence of the number of alternative answers and scans 

techniques on test reliability. Formative Journal, 5(1): 1-13. 

Kurzawa, D.D., 2011. Examination of the quality of multiple-choice. Canadian 

Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, volume 2, issue 2, 

page number 10. 

Marie, T.J.W., 2009. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors. 

BMC Medical Education: volume 9, issue 40, page number:1-8. 

Doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-40. 

Mkrtchyan, A., 2011. Distractor quality analyze in multiple choice. 3rd 

International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. 

Barcelona: State Engineering University of Armenia. pp: 1624-1631. 

Musmuliadi, “Hubungan Model Penskoran Terhadap Estimasi Skor 

Sesungguhnya,” Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, volume 13, issue 

2, 2009. 13: 248. 

Norani, N.G., 2012. Implementation of learning methods quiz team variable can 

improve motivation and economic learning outcomes in students of class 

VIIIC SMP muhammadiyah 2 Surakarta academic year 2011/2012. Urakarta: 

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. 

Rashmi, V., A. S., 2008. Multiple choice questions: A literature review on the 

optimal number of options. National Medical Journal of India, VOL. 21, 

Issue. 3, page number 132. 

Sanju, G., R. S., 2014. Item and test analysis to identify quality multiple choice 

questions (MCQs) from an assessment of medical students of Ahmedabad, 



 

56 JISAE. Volume 4 Number 1 February 2018. Copyright © Ikacana Publisher | ISSN: 2442-4919 | E-ISSN 2597-8934 
 

 

 

 

 

Gujarat. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: volume 39, issue 1, page 

number: 17-20. Doi: 10.4103/0970-0218.126347 

 

Naga, D.S., 2012. Theory of scores on mental measurements. Jakarta: PT: Nagarani 

Cita Rasa. 

Musmuliadi, 2009. Evaluation of learning. Jakarta: Youth. 

Soleh, A.N., 2009. Building professional teacher. 3rd Edn., Jakarta: Elsals. 

Sudjana, 2009. Statistical method. Bandung: Tarsito. 

Suprananto, K., 2012. Measurement and assessment of education. Yogyakarta: 

Graha Ilmu. 

Yamin, M., 2009. Teacher professionalization and KTSP implementation (2nd 

Edn). Jakarta: Gaung Persada Press.