Development of a Circular Motion Concept Inventory for Use in Ugandan Science Education
Keywords:Physics education research, concept inventory, circular motion concept inventory (CMCI), classical test theory (CTT)
In this study, we administered and evaluated circular motion concept question items with a view to developing an inventory suitable for the Ugandan context. Before administering the circular concept items, six physics experts and ten undergraduate physics students carried out the face and content validation. One hundred eighteen undergraduate students responded to the 42 circular motion concept items. The data were analysed using the classical test theory (CTT) and item response curve (IRC) analyses. We calculated the difficulty level and index of discrimination and gauged the distraction efficiency of items. The IRCs revealed insights that were not evident from those provided by the CTT. Based on the IRCs, the circular concept items are classified into three categories: efficient, moderately efficient, and inefficient. This helped us better evaluate the quality of the items and their appropriateness for the population under consideration. We ended up with 22 circular motion concept question items which we call the circular motion concept inventory (CMCI). This inventory is particularly relevant to Ugandan context and may be useful to other countries in the East African region which share similar syllabi.
Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning
of expert‐like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289-1312.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in education. Cengage.
Aslanides, J. S., & Savage, C. M. (2013). Relativity concept inventory: Development, analysis, and results.
Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010118.
Balta, N., Dzhapashov, N., Salibasic, D., & Mesic, V. (2022). Development of the High School Wave Optics
Test. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 306-331.
Chasteen, S. V., Pepper, R. E., Caballero, M. D., Pollock, S. J., & Perkins, K. K. (2012). Colorado upperdivision electrostatics diagnostic: A conceptual assessment for the junior level. Physical Review
Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020108.
Chedi, J. M. (2017). A preliminary review on needs analysis and Delphi technique: Effective tools for data
collection. Journal of Asian Vocational Education and Training, 10, 44-52. http://www.javet.net/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/010-04-2017_Jamilu-Mustapha-Chedi_A Preliminary-Review-on-NeedsAnalysis-and-Delphi-Technique.pdf
Cizek, G. J., Robinson, K. L., & O'Day, D. M. (1998). Nonfunctioning options: A closer look. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 58(4), 605-611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058004004
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision‐making tasks in
education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-386.
Cohen, R., & Swerdlik, M. (2009). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and
Measurement (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A
guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman,
DeMars, C. E. (2018). Classical test theory and item response theory. The Wiley handbook of psychometric
testing: A multidisciplinary reference on a survey, scale, and test development, 49-73.
Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review
Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020103.
Gerke, F., Müller, R., Bitzenbauer, P., Ubben, M., & Weber, K. A. (2022). Requirements for future
quantum workforce – a Delphi study. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2297(1), 012017.
Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q., & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for
multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research. 87(6),
Ishimoto, M., Davenport, G., & Wittmann, M. C. (2017). Use of item response curves of the Force and
Motion Conceptual Evaluation to compare Japanese and American students’ views on force and
motion. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 020135.
Istiyono, E., & Hamdi, S. (2020). Measuring Creative Thinking Skills of Senior High School Male and
Female Students in Physics (CTSP) Using the IRT-based PhysTCreTS. Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 17(4), 578-590. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1283951.pdf
Jalil, S., Ali, M. S., & Haris, A. (2018). Development and validation of science process skills instrument in
physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1028 (1), 012203.
Kirya, K. R., Mashood, K. K., & Yadav, L. L. (2021a). Review of research in student conception studies and
concept inventories- Exploring PER threads relevant to Ugandan context. African Journal of
Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences. 17(1), 37-60.
Kirya, K. R., Mashood, K. K., & Yadav, L. L. (2021b). A methodological analysis for the development of a
circular-motion concept inventory in a Ugandan context by using the Delphi technique.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 20(10), 61-82.
Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., Pol, H. J., Brinkman, A., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2019). Key topics for quantum
mechanics at secondary schools: a Delphi study into expert opinions. International Journal of
Science Education, 41(3), 349-366.
Kucharavy, D., & De Guio, R. (2015). Application of logistic growth curve. Procedia engineering, 131, 280-
Laverty, J. T., & Caballero, M. D. (2018). Analysis of the most common concept inventories in physics:
What are we assessing? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010123.
Li, J., & Singh, C. (2016). Developing and validating a conceptual survey to assess introductory physics
students’ understanding of magnetism. European Journal of Physics, 38(2), 25.
Mabila, T. E. (2017). Postgraduate students’ understanding of mixed methods research design at the
proposal stage. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(5), 136-153.
Mashood, K. K., (2014). Development and evaluation of a concept inventory in rotational kinematics.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai. Retrieved
January 18, 2020, from http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/research-development/ph.d.-theses/thesis
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2015). Rotational kinematics of a rigid body about a fixed axis:
development and analysis of an inventory. European Journal of Physics, 36(4), 045020.
Morris, G. A., Branum-Martin, L., Harshman, N., Baker, S. D., Mazur, E., Dutta, S., Mzoughi, T., &
McCauley, V. (2006). Testing the test: item response curves and test quality. American Journal of
Physics. 74, 449–53. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2174053
Morris, G. A., Harshman, N., Branum-Martin, L., Mazur, E., Mzoughi, T., & Baker, S. D. (2012). An item
response curves analysis of the Force Concept Inventory. American Journal of Physics, 80(9), 825-
Mutsvangwa, A. (2020). A study of student teachers’ misconceptions on uniform circular motion. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series, 1512 (1), 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1512/1/012029
National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC), Uganda (2013). Uganda Advanced Certificate of
Education, Teaching Syllabi for Physics. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from
Planinic, M., Boone, W. J., Susac, A., & Ivanjek, L. (2019). Rasch analysis in physics education research:
Why measurement matters. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020111.
Rakkapao, S., Prasitpong, S., & Arayathanitkul, K. (2016). Analysis test of understanding of vectors with
the three-parameter logistic model of item response theory and item response curves technique.
Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020135.
Reed, C. R., & Wolfson, A. J. (2021). Concept inventories as a complement to learning
progressions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(2), es4.
Resbiantoro, G., & Setiani, R. (2022). A review of misconception in physics: the diagnosis, causes, and
remediation. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2).
Reyes, M. G., & Rakkapao, S. (2020). Item response curve analysis of Likert scale on learning attitudes
towards physics. European Journal of Physics, 41, 045703. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ab805c
Richardson, C. J., Smith, T. I., & Walter, P. J. (2021). Replicating analyses of item response curves using
data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. Physical Review Physics Education
Research, 17(2), 020127. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020127
Rimoldini, L. G., & Singh, C. (2005). Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts.
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1 (010102), 1- 9.
Sartori, R. (2010). Face validity in personality tests: psychometric instruments and projective techniques in
comparison. Quality & Quantity, 44(4), 749-759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9224-0
Sirait, J. H., & Oktavianty, E. (2017). Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ understanding of vectors
and forces. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(2), 82-95.
Suprapto, E., Sumiharsono, R., & Ramadhan, S. (2020). The Analysis of Instrument Quality to Measure
the Students' Higher Order Thinking Skill in Physics Learning. Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 17(4), 520-527. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1284007.pdf
Tighe, J., McManus, I. C., Dewhurst, N. G., Chis, L., & Mucklow, J. (2010). The standard error of
measurement is a more appropriate measure of quality for postgraduate medical assessments
than is reliability: an analysis of MRCP (UK) examinations. BMC Medical Education, 10(1), 1-9.
Wong, V., & Kanageswari, S. S. S. (2020). The role of classical test theory to determine the quality of
classroom teaching test items. Pedagogia: Jurnal Pendidikan, 9(1).
Wu, M., Tam, H. P., & Jen, T. H. (2016). Educational measurement for applied researchers. Theory into
practice, 136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3302-5
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Turkish Science Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.