Development of four-tier tet formatted diagnostic test instruments to identify misconceptions in gas kinetic theory materials and termdynamic law


This study developed a four-tier test diagnostic test instrument to identify students' misconceptions on the material of the kinetic theory of gases and the laws of thermodynamics. This research is a development research using the 4D model. The 4D development model consists of four stages, namely: 1) Define, 2) Design (Design), 3) Develop (Development), 4) Disseminate (Spread). The instrument used in this study The instrument used in this study was a test instrument quality assessment sheet for material experts and evaluation experts. Assessment of product quality uses a Likert scale with 5 scales made in the form of a checklist. The results of the research developed were a four-tier test diagnostic test instrument to identify student misconceptions on the material of gas kinetic theory and the laws of thermodynamics. This four-tier test diagnostic test instrument consists of 16 items. Item validation includes the content validity in terms of material, construction, and language / culture aspects, as well as the suitability between the questions on the test and the indicators obtained from the consideration of expert lecturers. The practicality test of the Physics Diagnostic Test questions was given to 2 physics educators and 12 students of class XI IPA1 MAN 1 West Pasaman assessed from the aspects of ease and legibility of the questions in the implementation of the test. The effectiveness test was tested on 20 students of class XI IPA 1 MAN 1 West Pasaman by providing an Instrument for a Physics Diagnostic Test. The results of this study have produced Physics Diagnostic Test questions that are valid, practical and effective. The Physics Diagnostic Test item is valid both in terms of material, construction and language with an average value of 89.7% with a very valid category. The practicality of the Physics Diagnostic Test items has an average value of 81.8% with the practical category, while for the effectiveness of the product, the validity of the questions is 80%, the reliability of the questions is 0.78, the level of difficulty and the distinguishing power of the questions are good on each point of the problem. generated with an average value of 24%.


Diagnostic test, four-tier test, kinetic theory of gases, thermodynamics, misconceptions


  • Afif, Nur Faadhilah, dkk. (2017).“Developing energy and momentum conceptual survey (EMCS) with four-tier diagnostic test items.” 2017, doi:10.1063.
  • Caleon, I. S. & Subramaniam, “Do Students Know What They Know and What They Don’t
  • Know? Using a Four-Tier Diagnostic Test to Assess the Nature of Students’ Alternative
  • Conceptions,” in J. Res Sci Educ, 2010, vol. 40, pp. 313-337
  • Fariyani, Q., Rusilowati, A., Sugianto. (2015). Four-Tier Multiple Choice Diagnostic Test
  • Geometric Optic. Semarang: PPs Unnes.
  • Fariyani, Qisthi, Ani Rosilawati, dkk. (2017) “Four-Tier Diagnostic Test To Identify Miscopnceptions In Geometrical Optics.” 2017, vol. 5.
  • Fratiwi dkk, 2016.”The Transformation of The wo-Tier Test into Four Tier Test in Newton’s Law Concept.” 2016, vol 1.
  • Gurel et. al., “A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instruments to Identify Students’Misconceptions in Science,” in Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 2015, vol. 11, pp. 989-1008. J. K. Author, “Title of chapter in the book,” in Title of His Published Book, xth ed. City of Publisher, Country if not USA: Abbrev. of Publisher,
  • year, ch. x, sec. x, pp. xxx–xxx
  • Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. 2015. A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instrumens to Identify Students’
  • Misconceptions in Science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
  • Kose, S. (2008). Diagnosing Student Misconceptions: Using Drawings as a Research Method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3 (2), 283-293.
  • Law, J. F. & Treagust, D. F. (2010). Diagnosis of Student Understanding of Content Specific
  • Science Areas Using On-Line Two-Tier Diagnostic Tests. Australia: Curtin University.
  • Lin, S. (2004). “Development and Application of a Two-Tier Diagnostic Test for High School
  • Students’ Understanding of Flowering Plant Growth and Development”. International
  • Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2: 175-199.
  • Sion, H. H. & Janidi Jingan. (2008). Diagnostic assessment in three (3) core subjects for
  • primary and secondary education (mathematics, english language and science): Hands-on workshop for government primary and secondary I and II (year 7 & year teachers Negara Brunei Darussalam. A Concept Paper. Department of Human Resource Development Department of Planning, Development and Research Ministry of Education. Diambil pada tanggal 3 Pebruari 2011, dari
  • Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel, M. I. (1974). “Instructional Development for Training Teacher of Exceptionl Children: A Sourcebook. National Center for Inprovement of Educational System (DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C.
  • Yusrizal dan Halim. 2017.”The Effect Of The One-Tier, Two-Tier, And Three-Tier Diagnostic Test Toward The Students' Confidence And Understanding Toward The Concepts Of Atomic Nuclear” vol 2 2017
  • Zhongbao Zhao. (2013). “An Overview of Studieson Diagnostic Testing and its Implicationsfor the Development of Diagnostic Speaking Test”. International Journal of English Linguistics. Vol. 3 No. 1, 41– 45.