Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Item Response Theory and Rasch Model Applications in Physics Education Assessment: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis

Haeruddin Haeruddin, Delthawati Isti Ratnaningtyas, Muhammad Jarnawi, Syamsuriwal Syamsuriwal, Rudi Santoso

Abstract


Assessment in physics education requires valid and reliable measurement instruments capable of accurately representing students’ cognitive abilities, including conceptual understanding, scientific reasoning, and problem-solving skills. Over the past decades, instrument validation has shifted from Classical Test Theory to modern probabilistic measurement models, particularly Item Response Theory (IRT) and the Rasch model. Despite the growing application of these models in physics education research, the expanding literature remains thematically and methodologically fragmented, limiting a comprehensive understanding of the field’s intellectual development. Therefore, this study aims to map the intellectual structure and research trends of IRT and Rasch model applications in physics education assessment. This study employed a bibliometric research design using 243 Scopus-indexed publications published between 2001 and 2026. Bibliographic metadata were retrieved using Publish or Perish and analyzed using the Bibliometrix package in RStudio and VOSviewer to examine publication trends, influential sources, collaboration networks, and keyword co-occurrence patterns. The results reveal substantial growth in publications, increasing by more than 1,150% over the past two decades. Five major thematic clusters were identified: measurement frameworks, psychometric modeling, validity and fairness, instrument development and technology, and learning progression. Emerging themes such as computational thinking, digital instrument development, and multidimensional assessment indicate a shift toward competency-based and technology-supported assessment practices. Overall, the findings reveal the intellectual structure and research trends of IRT and Rasch model applications in physics education assessment, demonstrating their growing role as central methodological frameworks in contemporary assessment research. These findings also provide directions for future research, particularly in developing multidimensional Rasch-based instruments and technology-enhanced assessment systems in physics education


Keywords


Bibliometric analysis; Item response theory; Physics education assessment; Rasch model; Science mapping

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adams, R. J. (2005). Reliability as a measurement design effect. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(2–3), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.008

Addawiyah, I. R., Astra, I. M., Budi, E., & Wibowo, F. C. (2024). Multiple representations in physics learning: A bibliometric analysis. JIPF (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika), 9(2), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.26737/jipf.v9i2.4907

Amelia, R. N., & Kriswantoro, K. (2017). Implementation of item response theory for analysis of test items quality and students’ ability in chemistry. JKPK (Jurnal Kimia Dan Pendidikan Kimia), 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20961/JKPK.V2I1.8512

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Bancong, H., Nurazmi, N., Fiskawarni, T. H., & Park, J. (2021). Trending research topics in the field of physics education from 2017 to 2019 in highly reputable international journals. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 10(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.24042/JIPFALBIRUNI.V10I1.8341

Bezen, S., & Derman, İ. (2025). Unveiling global trends in gender equality research within physics education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101430

Bond, T. G., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2020). Applying the rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 1–348. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030499

Boone, W. J. (2017). Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE - Life Sciences Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-04-0148

Boone, W. J., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science education research utilizing multiple-choice tests. Science Education, 90(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20106

Boone, W. J., & Staver, J. R. (2020). Advances in rasch analyses in the human sciences. Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43420-5

Boone, W. J., Towensend, J. S., & Staver, J. R. (2016). Utilizing multifaceted rasch measurement through facets to evaluate science education data sets composed of judges, respondents, and rating scale items: An exemplar utilizing the elementary science teaching analysis matrix instrument. Science Education, 100(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21210

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

De Ayala, R. J. (2022). The theory and practice of item response theory: Second edition. 1–670.

Ding, L., & Zhang, P. (2023). Assessment practices in interactive physics class: explicating theories and applications. The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425712_018

Diya, D. R., & Putranta, H. (2025). Identifying the conceptual understanding of undergraduate physics students in solving basic physics problems: A descriptive quantitative study. Journal of Mathematics Science and Computer Education, 5(2), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.20527/jmscedu.v5i2.14585

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Doucette, D., & Singh, C. (2024). Gender equity in physics labs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 20(1), 010102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010102

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory for psychologists. Item Response Theory for Psychologists, 1–371. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605269

Engelhard, G. (2013). Invariant measurement: Using rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Invariant Measurement: Using Rasch Models in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, 1–288. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203073636

Evendi, E. (2022). Mathematical thinking styles and its implications in science learning: A bibliometric analysis. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 8(3), 1503–1511. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v8i3.1720

Haeruddin, Prasetyo, Z. K., Supahar, Sesa, E., & Lembah, G. (2020). Psychometric and structural evaluation of the physics metacognition inventory instrument. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.9.1.215

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications.

Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or Perish (Version 8) [Computer software]. https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish/windows

Hauenstein, C. E., & Embretson, S. E. (2018). Classical test theory. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, 278–283. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139

Hidayana Nassiri, S., Abd, M., & Bunyamin, H. (2025). Trends and research frontiers in physics education: A bibliometric analysis from year 2021-2025. Journal of Modern Education (IJMOE), 7(27), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.35631/ijmoe.727039

Intasoi, S., Junpeng, P., Tang, K. N., Ketchatturat, J., Zhang, Y., & Wilson, M. (2020). Developing an assessment framework of multidimensional scientific competencies. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 9(4), 963–970. https://doi.org/10.11591/IJERE.V9I4.20542

Istiyono, E., Dwandaru, W. S. B., Lede, Y. A., Rahayu, F., & Nadapdap, A. (2019). Developing irt-based physics critical thinking skill test: a cat to answer 21st century challenge. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 267–280.

https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12417a

Juliyanto, E., Wiyanto, W., Nugroho, S. E., & Mindyarto, B. N. (2026). PhET simulations performance to measure complex problem-solving skills in physics subject matter: Evidence of validity and reliability. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 16(2), 422–435. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2026.16.2.2515

Koerber, S., & Osterhaus, C. (2019). Individual differences in early scientific thinking: assessment, cognitive influences, and their relevance for science learning. Journal of Cognition and Development,

(4), 510–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1620232

Konu Kadirhanogullari, M., & Ozay Kose, E. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of articles on bibliometric studies in science education. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 10(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3370

Kotsis, K. T. (2025). Inquiry-based learning in science: Mathematical reasoning’s support of critical thinking. Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 2(1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.70232/JRMSTE.V2I1.35

Krisnaningsih, E., Putri, M. A. N., Irba, T., Suprapto, N., Deta, U. A., & Hariyono, E. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of multi representation based on problem-solving skills using vosviewer. Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 9(3), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.20527/BIPF.V9I3.11329

Liu, X. (2020). Using and developing measurement instruments in science education: a rasch modeling approach. Using and Developing Measurement Instruments in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-64113-936-6

Liu, X., & Collard, S. (2005). Using the rasch model to validate stages of understanding the energy concept. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(2), 224–241.

Marsman, M., Borsboom, D., Kruis, J., Epskamp, S., van Bork, R., Waldorp, L. J., Maas, H. L. J. van der, & Maris, G. (2018). An introduction to network psychometrics: relating ising network models to item response theory models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1379379

Merton, R. K. (1968). The matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D’Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., Gøtzsche, P. C., … Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2015). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2015 106:1, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de La Informacion, 29(1), 1699–2407. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03

Morell, L., Collier, T., Black, P., & Wilson, M. (2017). A construct-modeling approach to develop a learning progression of how students understand the structure of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 1024–1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21397

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(5), 449–453. 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), 825–831. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4731618

Mu’aziyah, S. E. S., Zainal, S., Agni, R., Supriyadi, S., & Isnawati, I. (2025). STEM-focused science identity questionnaire based on the pisa 2025 framework: Rasch model validation. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-3-737-748

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, 1–385. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch‐based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1373–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.511297

Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2010). Force concept inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020109

Novika, R., Istiyono, E., & Notiavina, A. A. (2025). Developing an assessment instrument to measure the minimum competency of high school physics using item response theory. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 29(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v29i1.70700

Nurfalah, F., Utama, J. A., & Muslim, M. (2025). Evaluating complex problem-solving test instrument quality in measuring computational thinking skills in global warming: rasch model analysis. Jurnal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat, 4(2), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.46843/JPM.V4I2.425

Nurjanah, S., Iqbal, M., Sultan, J., Sholihin, S., Ulyasari, N., & Rashid, S. (2024). Research trends of augmented reality in physics education based on scopus database in thirteen years (2010-2023): A bibliometric approach. JIPF (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika), 9(3), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.26737/JIPF.V9I3.5383

Nurjanah, S., Sultan, J., Aisyah, S., Puspita, D., & Ulyasari, N. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of problem based learning in physics education: a scopus based study (1996-2023). Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 12(2), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.20527/bipf.v12i2.18775

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

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. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020111

Plummer, J. D., & Maynard, L. (2014). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: An exploration of students’ reasoning about the seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 902–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21151

Pursitasari, I. D., Permana, I., Jaenudin, D., Suriansyah, M. I., Sumiati, E. S., & Aqilah, S. (2025). Digital literacy and scientific literacy of science teachers and student learning styles in science learning. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran IPA, 11(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.30870/JPPI.V11I1.30532

Qualters, D. M., Sheahan, T. C., Mason, E. J., Navick, D. S., & Dixon, M. (2008). Improving learning in first‐year engineering courses through interdisciplinary collaborative assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 37–45.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00952.x

Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21005

Ramadhan, S., Mardapi, D., Prasetyo, Z. K., & Utomo, H. B. (2019). The development of an instrument to measure the higher order thinking skill in physics. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.3.743

Riyadi, A., Susongko, P., & Pancasakti Tegal, U. (2024). Model asesmen literasi sains pada peserta didik sekolah dasar dengan aplikasi model rasch. Journal of Education Research, 5(3), 3044–3054. https://doi.org/10.37985/JER.V5I3.1411

Rost, J., & Carstensen, C. H. (2002). Multidimensional rasch measurement via item component models and faceted designs. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621602026001003

Scantlebury, K., Boone, W., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2001). Design, validation, and use of an evaluation instrument for monitoring systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 646–662. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1024

Thelwall, M. (2016). Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.006

Traxler, A., Henderson, R., Stewart, J., Stewart, G., Papak, A., & Lindell, R. (2018). Gender fairness within the force concept inventory. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010103

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2009 84:2, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Wang, J., & Bao, L. (2010). Analyzing force concept inventory with item response theory. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1064–1070. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3443565

Zakwandi, R., Istiyono, E., & Dwandaru, W. S. B. (2024). A two-tier computerized adaptive test to measure student computational thinking skills. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8579–8608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12093-w

Zayrin, A. A., Nupus, H., Maizia, K. K., Marsela, S., Hidayatullah, R., & Harmonedi, H. (2025). Analisis instrumen penelitian pendidikan (uji validitas dan relibilitas instrumen penelitian). QOSIM : Jurnal Pendidikan Sosial & Humaniora, 3(2), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.61104/JQ.V3I2.1070

Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629




DOI: https://doi.org/10.20527/jmscedu.v6i1.18491

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

Creative Commons License

Journal Of Mathematics Science and Computer Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.