Home⇛Information Generation & Management⇛vol. 5 no. 1 (2025)

Strengthening Librarian Professional Development: An Assessment of Collection Development Training Evaluation Using Item Analysis

Willian Frias | Jonas Sahagun

Discipline: library and information science

 

Abstract:

Statement of the Problem / Objectives. As the Network of Academic Law Librarians, Inc. (NALL) prepares for subsequent iterations of the Academic Law Librarians Certificate Program (ALLCP), ensuring the pedagogical integrity of its assessment tools is paramount. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic quality and reliability of the ALLCP post-training quiz on Collection Development. The objective is to identify specific test items requiring revision, specifically those with poor discrimination or inadequate cognitive demand, to ensure the instrument accurately measures professional competency. Methods. The study utilized a quantitative descriptive design, applying Classical Test Theory (CTT) to evaluate a 10-item post-training assessment. The setting was a national training certificate program for Filipino law librarians, with a subject pool of 52 participants. Data analysis involved calculating the Difficulty Index (p), Discrimination Index (D), item variance, and internal consistency using Cronbach’s Alpha. Participants were categorized into top (27%), middle (46%), and bottom (27%) groups to assess the instrument’s ability to differentiate between performance levels. Results. The assessment yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.6766, indicating moderate internal consistency. Item analysis revealed a diverse range of psychometric performance: Items 2 and 7 were identified as problematic, exhibiting high difficulty (p < 0.36) and low discrimination (D < 0.45), suggesting structural ambiguity. Conversely, Items 3 and 5 were categorized as "Very Easy" (p > 0.86), functioning as foundational recognition tasks rather than measures of analytical depth. While some items showed excellent discrimination (D = 0.80), the findings indicate that 40% of the instrument requires strategic revision to better align with higher-order cognitive objectives. Conclusion. The study concludes that while the ALLCP assessment provides a functional measure of learning, its diagnostic rigor is currently hampered by items that are either structurally ambiguous or cognitively simplistic. To improve the tool, "Difficult" items must be refined to eliminate trick distractors, and "Very Easy" items must be transitioned from simple recall to scenario-based application. Implementing these psychometric improvements will ensure the ALLCP remains a robust benchmark for professional excellence in law librarianship. Originality. This research provides a rare data-driven evaluation of professional development assessments within the specific context of Philippine law librarianship. It demonstrates a practical application of item analysis that is often reserved for high-stakes academic testing to specialized professional certificate programs, offering a replicable model for other library associations to institutionalize quality assurance in their training curricula.



References:

  1. American Association of Law Libraries. (2010, April). AALL competencies of law librarianship. https://www.aallnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AALL-Competencies-of-Law-Librarianship.pdf
  2. American Association of Law Libraries. (2018). AALL body of knowledge [BoK]. https://www.aallnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/BoK-FINAL-02.8.2023-Hi-Res.pdf
  3. Ashraf, Z. A., & Jaseem, K. (2020). Classical and modern methods in item analysis of test   tools. International   Journal   of   Research   and   Review, 7(5), 397–403. IJRR005820200611-48713-y31tfs-libre.pdf
  4. Balleste,  R.,  Smith-Butler,  L.,  &  Luna-Lamas,  S.  (2006). Law librarianship in the twenty-first century. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. https://doi.org/10.5771/9781461669128
  5. Biggs,   J.   (1996).   Enhancing   teaching   through   constructive   alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  6. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (2012). Assessing learners in higher education. Routledge.
  7. Chevalier,  R.  (2004).  Evaluation:  The link between learning and performance. Performance    Improvement, 43(4), 40. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/evaluation-link-between-learning-performance/docview/237232242/se-2
  8. Continuing professional development act of 2016. (2016, July 21). Senate of the Philippines. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/70325
  9. Dorado, F. A. A. (2024). Assessing the craft: Use of specific descriptors as guide for evaluating   instructional   materials. English   Journal   Antartika, 2(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.70052/eja.v2i1.450
  10. Edelsbrunner, P. A., Simonsmeier, B. A., & Schneider, M. (2025). The Cronbach’s Alpha of domain-specific knowledge tests before and after learning: A meta-analysis of published studies. Educational Psychology Review, 37(1), 4-. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-024-09982-Y
  11. Filipe, H. P., Silva, E. D., Stulting, A. A., & Golnik, K. C. (2014). Continuing professional development: best practices. Middle East African journal of ophthalmology, 21(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-9233.129760
  12. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.Haladyna, T.  M., & Rodriguez, M.  C.  (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge. ISO 29993:2017
  13. Learning services outside formal education. (2017). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). https://www.iso.org/standard/70357.html
  14. Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  15. Knowles,  M.  S.,  Holton  III,  E.  F.,  &  Swanson,  R.  A.  (2014). The  adult  learner:  The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.
  16. Legal Education Advancement Program (LEAP). (2022, November 2). LEAP off the page: Academic Law Librarian Certification Program (ALLCP). Retrieved from.https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=164644712877877&set=a.157124570296558
  17. Marceau, M., Lachiver, É. V., Lambert, D., Daoust, J., Dion, V., Langlois, M. F., ... & St-Onge, C. (2024). Assessment practices in continuing professional development activities in health professions: A scoping review. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 44(2), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000507
  18. Maulina,  N.,  &  Novirianthy,  R.  (2020).  Item analysis and peer-review evaluation of specific   health   problems   and   applied   research   block   examination. Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education,9(2), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.49006
  19. McAllister, A. D., Flierl, M., Caswell, T. R., Costello, L., Hall, A. R., Li, C., & Walker, G. (2022).  Top trends in academic libraries:  A review of the trends and issues. College & Research Libraries News, 83(6), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.83.6.243
  20. Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult Learning: Linking theory and practice.
  21. Jossey-Bass. Nedeau-Cayoa, R., Laughlin, D., Rus, L., & Hall, J. (2013). Assessment of item-writing flaws   in   multiple-choice   questions. Journal   for   Nurses   in   Professional Development, 29(2), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/NND.0b013e318286c2f1
  22. Ohiri, S.  C., & Okoye, R.  O.  (2023).  Application of classical test theory as linear modeling to test item development and analysis. International Research Journal of Modernization  in  Engineering  Technology  and  Science,5(1),  2152–2159. https://www.doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS45379
  23. Praslova, L. (2010). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educational    Assessment, Evaluation    and   Accountability,  22(3),    215-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7
  24. Radawski, D. (1999). Continuous quality improvement: origins, concepts, problems, and applications. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 10(1), 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/01367895-199910010-00002
  25. Rezigalla, A. A. (2022). Item analysis: Concept and application. Medical education for the 21st century, 1-16.
  26. Saponaro, M. Z., & Evans, G. E. (2019). Collection management basics. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  27. Talebi,  G.  A.,  Ghaffari,  R.,  Eskandarzadeh,  E.,  &  Oskouei,  M.  A.  E.  (2013).  Item analysis an effective tool for assessing exam quality, designing appropriate exam and determining weakness in teaching. Research and Development in Medical Education, 2(2), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.5681/RDME.2013.016
  28. Technical Working Group, L.E.B. (2022). The academic law library standards and guidelines.1.
  29. The Philippine librarianship act of 2003. (2024, February 19). Senate of the Philippines Legislative Reference Bureau. https://issuances-library.senate.gov.ph/subject/the-philippine-librarianship-act-of-2003
  30. Turnbow, D., & Zeidman-Karpinski, A. (2016). Don’t use a hammer when you need a screwdriver:  How  to  use  the  right  tools  to  create  assessment  that  matters. Communications in Information Literacy, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.30
  31. Varlejs,  J.,  Lewis,  V.,  Schnuer,  S.,  &  Jara  de Sumar,  J.  (2016). IFLA guidelines for continuing professional development: Principles and best practices.
  32. Uyanah, D. A., & Nsikhe, U. I. (2023). The theoretical and empirical equivalence of Cronbach Alpha and Kuder-Richardson formular-20 reliability coefficients. International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology (IRJIET), 7(5), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2023.705003
  33. Xie, B., Davidson, M. J., Li, M., & Ko, A. J. (2019). An item response theory evaluation of a language-independent  CS1 knowledge  assessment.  In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 699–705). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287370