International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 9 (September 2025), Pages: 205-214

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Development and validation of a college admission test for a higher education institution in the Cordillera Administrative Region, Philippines

 Author(s): 

 Donato O. Abaya *

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Psychology, Ifugao State University, Lamut, Ifugao, Philippines

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7733-5031

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.09.020

 Abstract

This study aimed to design a college admission test for a higher education institution in the Cordillera Administrative Region of the Philippines and to evaluate its psychometric properties. The initial version of the test included 120 items each for Verbal Reasoning and Numerical Ability, which were reviewed by experts and assessed for validity. After revisions, the final version contained 60 items for each area. The Item-Content Validity Index was 0.93, showing a high level of content validity. Reliability testing showed a coefficient of 0.80 for Verbal Reasoning and 0.65 for Numerical Ability, with an overall reliability of 0.76, indicating moderate but acceptable reliability. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) confirmed that Verbal Reasoning had a three-factor structure, with all factor loadings above 0.40, supporting construct validity. Numerical Ability was found to represent a single factor, suggesting it measured one main ability. To check concurrent validity, the new test was given alongside the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT), and results showed strong positive correlations between similar subtests (r = .71, p < .01), supporting its criterion-related validity. Test norms were created using z-scores, IQ equivalents, and stanine scores. Overall, the findings show that the developed college admission test is a valid, reliable, and regionally appropriate tool for selecting incoming students.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 College admission, Verbal reasoning, Numerical ability, Test validity, Test reliability

 Article history

 Received 13 March 2025, Received in revised form 4 August 2025, Accepted 19 August 2025

 Funding

This study was funded by Ifugao State University through its Research and Development Department, which supported all stages from proposal to dissemination without influencing the research process or results. 

 Acknowledgment

The researcher gratefully acknowledges Ifugao State University, the participating schools, respondents, colleagues, and friends for their vital support in completing this study. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

The study followed institutional ethics, with informed consent, voluntary participation, secure data storage, and coded identifiers to ensure confidentiality.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Abaya DO (2025). Development and validation of a college admission test for a higher education institution in the Cordillera Administrative Region, Philippines. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(9): 205-214

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  No Figure

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4  Table 5  Table 6  Table 7

----------------------------------------------   

 References (53)

  1. Abma IL, Rovers M, and van der Wees PJ (2016). Appraising convergent validity of patient-reported outcome measures in systematic reviews: Constructing hypotheses and interpreting outcomes. BMC Research Notes, 9: 226.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2034-2    [Google Scholar] PMid:27094345 PMCid:PMC4837507
  2. Aldridge V, Dovey T, and Wade A (2017). Assessing test-retest reliability of psychological measures: Persistent methodological problems. European Psychologist, 22(4): 207–218.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000298    [Google Scholar]
  3. Almanasreh E, Moles R, and Chen TF (2019). Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(2): 214–221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066    [Google Scholar] PMid:29606610
  4. Ashraf Z and Jaseem K (2020). Classical and modern methods in item analysis of test tools. International Journal of Research, 7(8): 397–403.    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, and Young SL (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6: 149.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149    [Google Scholar] PMid:29942800 PMCid:PMC6004510
  6. Cerado EC and Garcia MA (2022). Development of continuous improvement program assessment tool (CIPAT) in the Department of Education-SOX Region, Philippines. Current Research in Language, Literature and Education, 7: 154–170.  https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/crlle/v7/16627D    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cronbach LJ and Meehl PE (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4): 281–302.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957    [Google Scholar] PMid:13245896
  8. Dechavez CFJ (2024). Contextualizing learning: A multi-variable analysis of student characteristics, educational settings, and academic success. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 11(8): 228–243.  https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1108019    [Google Scholar]
  9. DeVellis RF (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.    [Google Scholar]
  10. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, and Lang A-G (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41: 1149–1160.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149    [Google Scholar] PMid:19897823
  11. Ferrando PJ and Morales-Vives F (2023). Is it quality, is it redundancy, or is model inadequacy? Some strategies for judging the appropriateness of high-discrimination items. Anales de Psicología, 39(3): 517–526.  https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.535781    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gatcho ARG, Manuel JPG, and Hajan BH (2024). No child left behind, literacy challenges ahead: A focus on the Philippines. Frontiers in Education, 9: 1349307.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1349307    [Google Scholar]
  13. Green JH, Davis C, Harmes M, Judith K, and Weideman A (2025). Using a five-phase applied linguistics design to develop a contextualized academic literacy placement test for pre-university pathway students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 64(2): 229-255.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2024.2340031    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, and Anderson RE (2014). Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edition, Pearson New International Edition, Essex, UK.    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haladyna TM and Rodriguez MC (2013). Developing and validating test items. 1st Edition, Routledge, New York, USA.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850381    [Google Scholar]
  16. Haladyna TM and Rodriguez MC (2021). Using full-information item analysis to improve item quality. Educational Assessment, 26(3): 198–211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2021.1946390    [Google Scholar]
  17. Han K, Colarelli SM, and Weed NC (2019). Methodological and statistical advances in the consideration of cultural diversity in assessment: A critical review of group classification and measurement invariance testing. Psychological Assessment, 31(12): 1481–1496.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000731    [Google Scholar] PMid:31763873
  18. Kaiser HF (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1): 31–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kline TJB (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385693    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kyriazos TA and Stalikas A (2018). Applied psychometrics: The steps of scale development and standardization process. Psychology, 9: 2531–2560.  https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.911145    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee O, Santau AO, and Maerten-Rivera J (2011). Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing linguistic and cultural diversity. Routledge, New York, USA.    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lin C (2018). Effects of removing responses with likely random guessing under Rasch measurement on a multiple-choice language proficiency test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(4): 406–422.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1534237    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lynn MR (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6): 382–385.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017    [Google Scholar]
  24. Magno C and Gonzales RDLC (2011). Measurement and evaluation in the Philippine higher education: Trends and development. In the UNESCO Policy Series: Trends and Development in Philippine Education. UNESCO, Paris, France: 47–58.    [Google Scholar]
  25. Maruyama G, Ovies-Bocanegra MA, Do T, Peczuh MC, and Weisen S (2024). How much do we need college admission tests? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 24: 1288–1308.  https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12417    [Google Scholar]
  26. McGrew KS (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1): 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004    [Google Scholar]
  27. Messick S (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9): 741–749.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.50.9.741    [Google Scholar]
  28. Miller MD (2019). Reliability in educational assessments. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.  https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0228    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nagy W, Townsend D, Lesaux NK, and Schmidt N (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47: 91–108.  https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011    [Google Scholar]
  30. Orongan RC (2020). Reliability analysis on teachers’ quarterly classroom assessment in basic education. Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research, 16(1): 99-107.  https://doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v16i1.1370    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ozturgut O (2011). Learning by example: Standardized testing in the cases of China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 9(3): 13.  https://doi.org/10.58809/DPYD4742    [Google Scholar]
  32. Park SK and Kim EG (2021). A study on the reliability and validity of the Korean health literacy instrument for late school-aged children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19): 10304.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910304    [Google Scholar] PMid:34639605 PMCid:PMC8508180
  33. Pearce J, Edwards D, Fraillon J, Coates H, Canny BJ, and Wilkinson D (2015). The rationale for and use of assessment frameworks: Improving assessment and reporting quality in medical education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 4(3): 110–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-015-0182-Z    [Google Scholar] PMid:25962966 PMCid:PMC4456467
  34. Penn S (2023). Uses and abuses of standardised testing: Perceptions from high-performing, socially disadvantaged schools. Issues in Educational Research, 33(1): 266–283.    [Google Scholar]
  35. Polit DF and Beck CT (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29: 489–497.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147    [Google Scholar] PMid:16977646
  36. Polit DF, Beck CT, and Owen SV (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30: 459–467.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199    [Google Scholar] PMid:17654487
  37. Post M (2016). What to do with “moderate” reliability and validity coefficients? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(7): 1051–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.04.001    [Google Scholar] PMid:27095143
  38. Primi R, Ferrão ME, and Almeida LS (2010). Fluid intelligence as a predictor of learning: A longitudinal multilevel approach applied to math. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5): 446–451.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.05.001    [Google Scholar]
  39. Quaigrain K and Arhin A (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1): 1301013.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1301013    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rudolph MJ, Daugherty KK, Ray ME, Shuford VP, Lebovitz L, and DiVall MV (2019). Best practices related to examination item construction and post-hoc review. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(7): 7204.  https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7204    [Google Scholar] PMid:31619832 PMCid:PMC6788158
  41. Schumacker RE (2005). Standards for interpreting reliability coefficients. Joint Committee of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., USA.    [Google Scholar]
  42. Shi J, Mo X, and Sun Z (2012). Content validity index in scale development. Journal of Central South University: Medical Sciences, 37(2): 152–155.    [Google Scholar]
  43. Souza ACD, Alexandre NMC, and Guirardello EDB (2017). Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, 26(3): 649–659.  https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742017000300022    [Google Scholar] PMid:28977189
  44. Sternberg RJ (2018). Context-sensitive cognitive and educational testing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3): 857–884.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9428-0    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tavakol M and Dennick R (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2(2): 53–55.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd    [Google Scholar] PMid:28029643 PMCid:PMC4205511
  46. Tavakol M and Doody G (2015). Making students’ marks fair: Standard setting, assessment items and post hoc item analysis. International Journal of Medical Education, 6: 38–39.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.54e8.86df    [Google Scholar] PMid:25725229 PMCid:PMC4383637
  47. Tavakol M and Wetzel A (2020). Factor analysis: A means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. International Journal of Medical Education, 11: 245–247.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a    [Google Scholar] PMid:33170146 PMCid:PMC7883798
  48. van der Maas HLJ, Dolan CV, Grasman RP, Wicherts JM, Huizenga HM, and Raijmakers ME (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113(4): 842–861.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842    [Google Scholar] PMid:17014305
  49. Yahia A (2022). Post-validation item analysis to assess the validity and reliability of multiple-choice questions at a medical college with an innovative curriculum. The National Medical Journal of India, 34(6): 359–362.  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_414_20    [Google Scholar] PMid:35818102
  50. Yusoff MSB (2019). ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in Medicine Journal, 11(2): 49–54.  https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, and Nikanfar AR (2015). Design and implementation content validity study: Development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of Caring Sciences, 4(2): 165–178.  https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017    [Google Scholar] PMid:26161370 PMCid:PMC4484991
  52. Zhou Y, Liu Q, Wu J, Wang F, Huang Z, Tong W, Xiong H, Chen E, and Ma J (2021). Modeling context-aware features for cognitive diagnosis in student learning. In the Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM, Virtual Event, Singapore: 2420–2428.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3447548.3467264    [Google Scholar] PMid:34538113
  53. Zimmermann S, Klusmann D, and Hampe W (2017). Correcting the predictive validity of a selection test for the effect of indirect range restriction. BMC Medical Education, 17: 246.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1070-5    [Google Scholar] PMid:29228995 PMCid:PMC5725878