Final item bank features and considerations for its future use

• Author: Castaño, Jonatan; Centeno, Clara; Jakobsone, Mara; Kluzer, Stefano; Troia, Sandra; Vuorikari, Riina; Cabrera, Marcelino; O'Keeffe, William; Zandbergs, Uldis; Clifford, Ian; Punie, Yves
• Pages: 47-49

DigCompSAT: A Self-reflection Tool for DigComp

47

Chapter 6. FINAL ITEM BANK FEATURES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ITS

FUTURE USE

6.1 The Item bank

The median time for test-taking in Pilot 2 was significantly shorter than in Pilot 1: 23 minutes compared to

27 minutes for the first pilot.7 The revised Item Bank therefore matches even better the desired test-taking

duration.

At the same time, we have very good results from statistical analysis. The Cronbach’s Alphavalues for the

SAT total in Pilot 2 is an excellent 0.987 and the values for the five areas are all above 0.93.

Besides, no items should be definitely removed based on the other statistical indicators from Pilot 2 results:

—none reached the 80% difficulty indicator threshold that we used in Pilot 1;

—none was below or equal to the 0.2 minimum acceptable level of the discrimination index (the lowest level

is above 0.3 for 1 item)

—and correlation analysis pointed at items that might be considered redundant, but a much larger test might

be needed to reach more stringent conclusions.

The analysis of unclear itemshas identified 2 items for which a relatively large number of respondents chose

the answer “The question is unclear to me”:

—Q48 “I am interested in understanding how a task can be broken down into steps so that it can be

automated.” (68 people who found them unclear),

—Q40 “I am keen to create new digital content by mixing and modifying existing resources. (41 people who

found them unclear).”

Interestingly, both are Attitude items and it is difficult to assess whether such high response rates reflect the

fact that respondents have flagged them unclear because they did not have a good enough level of digital

competence to understand what they meant, or because they lacked additional context/infor mation to

understand what they referred to (especially Q48 is related to 3.4 Programming competence), or because they

were worded ineffectively, or a mix of these reasons.

In any case, in the light of the above considerations, we agreed with JRC to keep th e Pilot 2 Item Bank as the

final one, but to improve the statements of Q40 and Q48 and to make some changes (different wording, adding

examples and context) to another 5 items which got a relatively high rate of “unclear to me” answers (Q5, 34,

39, 62, 78), with the aim to enhance their understandability.

The final version of the Item Bank with 82 statement and the agreed revisions can be found in Annex 13 -

Final Item Bank in English, Latvian and Spanish.

6.2 The DigCompSAT Report

The screenshot below (Figure 5.) shows an extract of the final “Digital Competences SAT report” that was

presented to users after completion of the SAT in Pilot 2. All competences and competence areas were covered

in this way. There was colour-coding indicating competences that users should focus upon with simple

associated statements. In the User Experience feedback from users, 62 felt that this was “just right” in the

level of detail provided. 19 felt there a was “a bit too much detail”, although this could be that the report

wording may have felt repetitive, especially if the user was largely on the same level across all areas or

competences. Conversely, 13 felt that it was “a little short on detail”.

7 The fact that the mean time was at 34 minutes (only slightly lower than in Pilot 1 reflects the fact that many

respondents at home (especially younger people) most likely interrupted test-taking more than once, leading

to unrealistic durations.