Item Analysis and Reteaching Decisions in a Grade 7 PLC
A seventh-grade PLC is reviewing results from a 20-item common assessment on informational text taken by 112 students. Item 12 has a p-value of .91 and a discrimination index near zero. Item 17 has a p-value of .28; distractor analysis shows that high-scoring students chose option B and low-scoring students chose option D. Item 18 tests a standard that has not yet been taught. Item 5 has two answer choices that the team agrees are defensible. The team has one 45-minute meeting before the next unit begins and is under pressure to show that it uses data. One teacher proposes reteaching the entire informational-text unit; another proposes dropping all four items and moving on. The team leader asks for a systematic recommendation that will hold up if administrators review the assessment.
1. Analyze each of the four items and classify the specific problem each presents. Explain which proposed response-reteaching the whole unit or dropping all four-is inadequate.
Read the worked answer
Item 12 (p = .91, discrimination near zero) is too easy for this group and does not separate students; it may be a useful check on a basic skill but should not carry much weight. Item 17 (p = .28, high scorers chose B, low scorers chose D) is likely miskeyed or has a flawed distractor set; the pattern suggests B may be the correct answer. Before reteaching, the team must review the item and key. Item 18 is invalid for this assessment because the standard has not been taught; including it penalizes students for opportunity to learn. Item 5 is flawed because two answers are defensible; it cannot be scored as written. The team should not treat all four as evidence of student failure. The systematic recommendation is: rescore or revise item 17, drop item 18 from scoring, revise item 5, and decide whether item 12 is retained as a low-weight item. This protects validity and fairness and gives the team defensible data. Reteaching the whole unit overreacts to flawed items, while dropping all four without revision throws away useful information.
2. Recommend specific revisions or scoring decisions for items 12, 17, 18, and 5. Justify each using validity and fairness, and explain how the team should document the decisions.
Read the worked answer
For item 12, either replace it with an item that requires inference from the same passage or retain it as a warm-up check without weighting it; if the standard is essential, keep the content but raise the demand. For item 17, have two teachers independently answer it without the key; if B is correct, rescore all 112 responses and report the corrected p-value. If the item is ambiguous, rewrite the stem and one distractor, then field-test before using it again. For item 18, remove it from this assessment because it was not taught; save it for the post-unit assessment. For item 5, rewrite the weaker distractor or change the stem so one answer is clearly best; until then, accept both answers or drop the item. The team should document each decision. This is not 'dropping items to look good'; it is removing measurement error. The revised assessment should still cover the taught standards with enough items to support inferences.
3. Explain how the team should use the valid results to plan instruction and what conclusions they should avoid drawing from this assessment alone.
Read the worked answer
Use only valid items to plan reteaching. If the valid items on central idea show low performance, reteach that skill with the same text type and a short formative check. If the low performance was concentrated in item 17 and item 18, reteaching the whole unit would waste time and teach the wrong lesson. The team should form groups based on valid item clusters, not the total score alone. It should also avoid concluding that students 'cannot read informational text' from one 20-item test; triangulate with classroom writing, running records, and discussion notes. A useful next step is a short common formative assessment on the two weakest valid standards within two weeks. Finally, the team should report both the original and corrected results transparently if item 17 was miskeyed, because administrators reviewing the assessment will need to see that the team caught and fixed the error.