The system for assessing the quality of education in the universities of the leading countries of the world O sistema de avaliação da qualidade da educação nas universidades dos principais países do mundo El sistema de evaluación de la calidad de la educación en las universidades de los principales países del mundo

The main purpose of the article is to study the most successful experience in the implementation of the education quality assessment system in the leading countries of the world. The world is constantly changing and developing. Together with it, we are changing, our ideas about the natural and anthropogenic environment, about our capabilities and needs are changing. We strive to know more, be able to do better, learn faster. And on this path, education is a powerful tool capable of changing the world. As a socio-cultural institution, education is acquiring new properties and characteristics. But the desire of people to form or receive education of the highest quality remains unchanged, especially in the context of systemic transformations. Universities have always been the main producers and providers of knowledge in society, but today they are recognized as the main generators of knowledge. In the context of global competition, a complex of interrelationships between high-quality higher education, scientific research both in the academic environment and outside it is becoming more important for ensuring the innovative and productive development of the state. As a result of the study, the most effective mechanisms for the implementation of the education quality assessment system in the leading countries of the world, as well as the most optimal methods for their adaptation, were analyzed.

INTRODUCTION
The quality of education is a very difficult category: philosophical, political, managerial, pedagogical, economic. It determines the quality of life of both an individual and society as a whole, since it is characterized not only by the amount of knowledge and skills acquired in professional activity, but also by the quality of the personal, ideological, and civic development of each individual.
The ideas about the quality of education and its content are not static. They reflect a certain historical era, the level of spiritual and technological development of society. High-quality education for all citizens is the basis for the creation of a high-quality and just society that mankind dreams of, which from time immemorial served as a kind of indicator of the development of our civilization. High-quality education can change ourselves and our perception of the world, the surrounding reality and the future. The course of historical civilizational development led to the transition from an industrial to an information society, in which the product of the highest value is information, and the cost of a human resource (as a source that produces this information) in the developed countries of the world reaches 80% of national wealth (Lyfenko, Savchenko, 2017).
In this context, the topical task of the state weight is to ensure the high quality and prospects of education in the country. This is a very difficult, difficult task, the solution of which requires new approaches and a different attitude. And how not to mention here the expression of A. Einstein that "the big problems facing us cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that we were at when they arose." The solution to this problem should be provided in a comprehensive manner: the formation of an appropriate state policy, the creation of an adequate institutional structure of the education system and governing bodies, the preservation and accumulation of a powerful scientific and educational resource aimed at training highly professional scientific, managerial and pedagogical personnel for all levels of education, including for higher, a change in the system of public and human motivations.
Ensuring the quality of higher education presupposes the creation of appropriate conditions for the personal and professional development of the applicant (student, listener), the successful implementation of his educational goals and the achievement of planned results. The mission of a modern university is to create a favorable educational environment for each student, direct it to independent educational and cognitive, research, professional and practical activities. And also to navigate in a competitive environment, to determine their own educational and professional priorities, to build an individual trajectory of education and upbringing, to develop an effective algorithm for the implementation of the set goals. Thus, the strategy of "ensuring the quality of higher education" determines the interconnected and mutually agreed activities of all subjects of the educational process, which is subject to the achievement of a common goal (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
The leading role in ensuring the quality of higher education belongs to universities, which are entrusted with the tasks of forming their own strategy for high-quality educational activities, introducing and constantly improving internal mechanisms for ensuring it, implementing an educational mission aimed at promoting common European academic ideals and values, fostering a culture of quality, attracting cooperation all interested parties. At the same time, it is necessary to maintain a balance of interests and areas of responsibility for quality between the main subjects of educational interaction, to give it a purposeful and constructive character, and therefore it is inappropriate to reduce the problem of the quality of higher education to the institutional level, transfer all responsibility exclusively to universities (Marciniak, Cáliz Rivera, 2021).
The quality of education is traditionally associated with the content and form of the educational process, based on the qualifications and experience of teachers. However, in the modern fast-moving world, the educational process should be directed not only at mastering basic knowledge, but also at the formation of needs, abilities and skills of independent assimilation of the latest knowledge throughout life, their effective use in practice. It is also important to discard old experiences and stereotypes of behavior. The quality of higher education includes a certain set of components, in particular (Doorwar, Meraj, Hassan, 2019): -the quality of the educational and methodological base (resource provision of educational institutions, the involvement in the educational process of new methods and means of cognition associated with modern technical capabilities); -the quality of research and teaching staff; The system for assessing the quality of education in the universities of the leading countries of the world -the quality of training of specialists capable of effective professional activity and adaptation to the conditions of scientific and technological progress, possessing technologies within their specialty and the ability to use their knowledge to solve professional problems.
The quality of education can be considered as the degree of satisfaction of the expectations of various participants in the educational process from the educational services provided by educational institutions, or as the degree of achievement of the goals and objectives set in education.
Consequently, the definition of criteria for the quality of education is one of the key problems of its assessment. Scientists conditionally divide them into four groups (Olmos-Gómez,Luque-Suárez, Ferrara, Cuevas-Rincón, 2021): 1. Criteria of the fact (accounting for quantitative indicators); 2. Quality criteria (give an idea of the depth and strength of the processes occurring in a person); 3. Attitude criteria (which allows one to draw conclusions about the motives of behavior and action, about the choice that a person makes, etc.); 4. Timing criteria (showing stability in measuring knowledge, skills and abilities). Some researchers prefer criteria based on tracking the cognitive results of education: the degree of achievement of specific learning goals, mental characteristics (Crawford, et al, 2020).
1. Criteria for the quality of the conditions for the implementation of the educational process (potential of applicants, personnel potential of universities, educational and methodological support of educational programs, information and library resources, satisfaction of students and staff with social conditions, material and technical support, quality of teaching, scientific and innovative potential); 2. Criteria for the quality of the functioning of the educational process (target, content, technological, resource and organizational support), i.e. ensuring compliance with the mission, the main directions of the strategy of universities to the set goals; implementation of educational programs; implementation of academic mobility; the implementation of educational work and the provision of various types of student practices; implementation of general management at the university, including the management of personnel, infrastructure, material and information resources, technologies, etc .; implementation of internal quality assurance; 3. Criteria for the quality of the result (the effectiveness of the recruitment of students and their academic performance, the level of formation of their professional key competencies, the satisfaction of employers, the results of improving the quality of training of specialists) The development of higher education is assessed by universal indicators, namely (Campbell, Nehm, 2013): -the number of students in absolute terms; -the number of students per 10 thousand of the population; -the number of students studying at the expense of the budget and on a contract basis; -the number of those admitted to the first year; -number of graduated specialists; -number of teaching staff.
Assessment of the quality of education belongs exclusively to state structures. The high degree of dependence of educational institutions on state governing bodies leads to the fact that they are perceived only as bodies of restriction and control, on which the fate of the institution depends. Any quality assessment is relative, since it depends on many objective and subjective factors. Therefore, no institution can have a monopoly on the only correct assessment of quality in the field of education. It is necessary to involve public assessment agencies that would complement each other. These can be public associations of representatives of interested circles and international organizations. Public assessment of the quality of education should be open and public, and should also take into account different assessment criteria (taking into account the public administration system, local government, professional groups, students, business circles, etc.). Their access to the assessment of the quality of education should be ensured. Public assessment of the quality of education should be carried out through accreditation associations for higher education institutions, which are able to develop uniform assessment criteria for various types of educational institutions. The result should be a ranking of educational institutions aimed at attracting applicants, the best research and teaching staff and state support.

METHODOLOGY
The main purpose of the article is to study the most successful experience in the implementation of the education quality assessment system in the leading countries of the world. For this, a number of methods were applied, which form the research methodology. The study was carried out using the following theoretical methods: systems analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, comparison, classification, generalization and systematization, idealization and abstraction.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ensuring the quality of education is one of the most pressing and multifaceted problems of higher education, which in the context of globalization is acquiring the character of a worldwide trend. Consistent and purposeful work in this direction of educational institutions, the state and organizations involved in quality assurance can be traced in the evolution of systems for assessing the quality of higher education, and is reflected in the variety of approaches, functions, goals, principles, forms and methods of assessment (Trškan, 2017): In the practice of assessing the quality of the work of universities, there are three main approaches: reputational, effective and general.
The reputation approach uses an expert mechanism to assess the level of professional educational programs and educational institutions in general.
The effective approach is based on measuring the quantitative indicators of the university's activities.
The overall approach is based on the principles of "Total Quality Management" (TQM) and the requirements for quality management systems of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
The main factors for the effectiveness of the system for ensuring the property of higher education are shown in Table 1. Table 1. The main factors for the effectiveness of the system for ensuring the property of higher education.

№
Meaning of the factor 1 Attitude towards higher education as the highest value, the guarantee of social progress, national security, competitiveness of the state, universities, and an individual 2 Adequate financing of institutions of higher education, decent wages for scientific and pedagogical workers, realizing educational goals and ensuring the quality of teaching 3 Educational activities of universities, constantly informing applicants, the public, employers, and other interested parties about their own quality assurance strategy, general objectives and measures to improve the efficiency of the educational process 4 Promotion of academic virtue, intolerance to any form of its violation (compilation, plagiarism, falsification), practical implementation of a nationwide anti-plagiarism system and punishment for various manifestations of academic disadvantage (civil servants and officials of all ranks, university leaders, education teachers) The system for assessing the quality of education in the universities of the leading countries of the world 5 Personal responsibility of stakeholders for the results of educational activities (teaching, teaching, organizing professional and practical training, making managerial decisions). 6 Constant monitoring of the effectiveness of the systems of external and internal quality assurance of higher education by the state, society, public organizations, independent agencies 7 Transparency of mechanisms and measures to ensure the quality of higher education, open access to information on the activities of the relevant management bodies, higher education institutions, scientific institutions related to the improvement of external and internal quality assurance systems In the context of globalization, the general approach has been widely used in the system of quality management of goods and services of enterprises, organizations and institutions in all spheres and industries, including educational activities.
At the present stage of development of higher education, the composition of methods for assessing educational activities, the content of functions, principles and goals of assessment are increasingly becoming universal and are used with varying degrees of regularity in almost all existing systems of quality assurance and control. The main factor that makes it possible to identify and, accordingly, classify these systems is the nature of the distribution of powers to ensure quality by levels of its management: the state is an educational institution.
Scientists National systems for assessing the quality of education that currently exist in different countries differ significantly not only in goals and objectives, criteria and procedures, but also in many other parameters, including the degree of involvement in this process of government (state) and public and professional bodies and institutions For example, in Germany, until recently, the main role in ensuring the quality of training was given to the internal component, which in turn was based on the competence and responsibility of the teaching staff, heads of universities and educational departments [2]. Internal control of the quality of education in German universities was carried out mainly by faculties, more precisely, by their special commissions responsible for the educational process. The external one on the part of the regional governing bodies of educational institutions was aimed at the formation of the teaching and management staff of universities and the opening of new specialties (areas of training). All of these issues, including staff appointments for some teaching positions, were subject to approval by the Ministry of Education of the respective region (state). (Aviram, 1996).
In recent years, the country came to the conclusion that the listed control methods are not enough, and in 1995 a system of external quality assessment was introduced, operating according to a complex multi-stage scheme under the auspices of the Conference of University Rectors. At the first stage, the university subject to the assessment procedure prepares a report based on selfcertification, containing information on intellectual potential, material and technical base, research activities and other aspects of educational activities. The university commission conducting the assessment pays special attention to the questioning of students in order to obtain their generalized opinion, which becomes one of the main indicators in self-certification of this direction of training. The next step is external evaluation. The conference of university rectors forms special certification commissions in different areas, which at the next stage of their work assign the verification of the same educational program implemented by all universities in a particular region, which happens almost simultaneously. This procedure, which allows for a comparative analysis of the quality of training in different universities, is considered the most objective and economically less costly (Waltman, Wouters, Eck, 2017).
Until recently, there was no accreditation of educational institutions at the federal level in Germany -state universities received accreditation automatically. As for non-state ones, their accreditation was carried out by the Ministry of Education of each state in accordance with its own regional legislation on accreditation. The introduction of new qualifications for bachelor's and master's ("master") in connection with the participation of Germany in the Boulogne process served as an additional incentive for the extension of the institute of accreditation to the federal level. For this purpose, the National Accreditation Council was established, whose tasks include: coordination of procedures for evaluating educational programs; accreditation of regional and interregional agencies authorized to conduct assessments; ensuring objectivity and transparency of the assessment rules. This allows for a more objective and unbiased assessment of educational institutions.
In the United States of America, universities themselves play a major role in assessing the quality of education, and many have their own assessment centers, as well as independent assessment organizations. In the United States, this type of assessment is very well developed, there is even a whole series of journals devoted only to the assessment of higher education.
The main objectives of the structures that assess the quality of higher education are as follows. First, ensuring the quality of higher education in different contexts: economic, social and cultural. Secondly, support and support for higher education institutions in the implementation of measures to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Third, stimulation of mutual exchange of information on quality assurance in education.
The main assessment methods are assessment, accreditation, audit and ranking. "Evaluation" is a global term for quality assurance, but quite often it is considered in parallel with other methods, such as auditing. Consider several types of assessment that are most common in the West. The first is "subject assessment" -it focuses on the quality of a particular subject, as a rule, in all programs where this subject is presented. The second type of assessment is "program evaluation" -it focuses on the activities of the curriculum. The third -"assessment of the educational institution" -here the quality of the university's work, its organization, financial issues, management, material and technical base, as well as teaching and research work are studied.
The latter type -"topic assessment" -examines the quality or practice of a specific educational topic, for example, student counseling. The most common assessments used in both Europe and the United States are program and institution assessments. This is due to the fact that the other two types are more capacious and require more effort for assessment, while the more popular types of assessments allow you to quickly give an idea of the state of the university (Wariyo, 2020).
One of the most difficult questions in the course of the assessment remains -the problem of the choice of educational indicators and systems of indicators. The system for developing indicators is the same as for developing indicators in the economic or social sphere. The problem with educational indicators lies in the difficulty of determining the criteria for quality education, since there are no direct indicators indicating the effectiveness or inefficiency of this process. Here it is necessary to take into account data on both students and teaching staff. Indicators are usually grouped according to indicators of the conditions for the implementation of educational activities (concept of an educational institution, personnel, educational resources), indicators of the process (university management, content of educational programs, social infrastructure), outcome indicators (quality of training bachelors, masters, level of employment, research efficiency) (Blaskova, Blasko, Kucharcikova, 2014).
A feature of the American assessment system is the development of a self-assessment system. This fact is due to the fact that until recently, control over universities by state administrations and government agencies in general was rather weak. Despite this, American universities have always strived to improve the education system, the emphasis in this endeavor was placed precisely on the self-assessment system carried out at the educational institution level.
England historically combines the "English model", which is based on the internal selfassessment of the university academic community, and the "French model", based on the external assessment of the university in terms of its responsibility to society and the state.
The system for assessing the quality of education in the universities of the leading countries of the world In Europe, there is still no unified system of institutional assessment of the performance of educational institutions, similar to the accreditation system in the United States. However, each country has its own approaches to ensuring and assessing the quality of higher education.
In the UK, a multi-stage system of accreditation of universities and their educational programs has been created with the leading role of the government organization Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). A number of British universities evaluate the educational programs of other educational institutions according to the criteria agreed with the QAA. For example, The Open University (OU) in 1992 created its own structure -The Open University Validation Services (OUVS), engaged in the accreditation of educational institutions and the validation of educational programs, including outside the UK (Trapitsin, Granichina, Granichin, 2017).
In Australia, a new approach to accreditation of educational programs, developed in 1996 by the Australian Institute of Engineers in conjunction with the Australian Council of Deans of Faculties of Engineering, places great emphasis on the use of internal mechanisms for quality assurance systems. The new accreditation criteria for engineering programs are focused on results rather than processes. The accreditation procedure includes, along with internal assessments and quality assurance, external criteria and recommendations from industrial enterprises. In general, the accreditation process is aimed at innovation and development of engineering programs in accordance with the requirements of modern production.
The main criteria for accreditation are (Wang, Sun, Jiang, 2018): -the quality of the initial training of students admitted to the university; -requirements for graduates; -requirements for teachers and students; -academic programs; -professional practice. The peculiarities of these criteria are that these criteria allow: more freedom for universities in the formation of curricula; providing special attention to the quality of training of specialists; the need for continuous improvement of educational programs in order to improve their quality; stimulating innovation in educational standards A new approach to accreditation of study programs in Australia calls for attention to the use of internal mechanisms and quality assurance systems.
In New Zealand, the fundamental difference between the national policy in the field of ensuring an independent assessment of the quality of education is the fact that all key organizations working in this area carry out their activities in accordance with the uniform principles formulated by the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education -INQAAHE) [4]. INQAAHE was founded in 1991 and is one of the most recognized international organizations dealing with the quality assessment of higher education in the world. The network brings together accreditation agencies and other organizations interested in the high quality of post-secondary education institutions or educational programs.
The main objectives of INQAAHE are (Yetik, Ozdamar, Bozkurt, 2020): -collection and dissemination of information on the current state and new developments of theory and practice in the field of assessment, improvement and maintenance of quality in higher education; -organization of scientific research in areas of interest to the quality assurance system in higher education; -expressing the collective opinion of its members on issues of interest to the quality assurance system in higher education; -promoting theory and practice to improve the quality of higher education; The system for assessing the quality of education in the universities of the leading countries of the world -expressing the collective opinion of its members in cooperation with international bodies / organizations and the media; -ensuring good practice in maintaining and improving the quality of higher education; -support of scientific research in the field of quality management of higher education and its effectiveness; -providing advice to existing agencies, conducting expert reviews at the request of interested organizations and supporting the development of new accreditation agencies; -facilitating communication between accreditation agencies operating across national borders; -providing support to network members in setting standards for the activities of universities across national borders; -assistance in obtaining complete information on the recognition of international qualifications; -assistance in the development and use of credit credit technology and credit accumulation schemes to ensure student mobility within the country and abroad; -warning network members about dubious organizations and unfair accreditation practices; -Organizing, at the request of members, an external survey of the activities of INQAAHE participating agencies.
The adherence of organizations to common principles working in the field of independent assessment of the quality of education allows for a fairly detailed comparison of their main characteristics.
New Zealand's experience in creating conditions for the development of institutions for the formalization of an independent assessment of the quality of education is unique in that the created system of organizations that guarantee the quality of higher education makes it possible to use all aspects of the activities of educational institutions as the subject of an independent expert assessment. In addition, all parties are involved in the accreditation process at different stages and for different purposes, one way or another interested in improving the quality of training: representatives of the public, students, teachers, international experts in the field of quality assessment and others.
A distinctive feature here is also the high status of expert assessments and judgments about the quality of education and the trust given to independent accreditation agencies by state bodies -up to the use of the assessment results in the distribution of the volume of budgetary funding of universities (Apevalova, Gromova, Pasholikov, Trofimova, 2018).
The benefits of New Zealand's education quality assessment system are summarized in Table  2. Table 2. The benefits of New Zealand's education quality assessment system.

№
The benefits of New Zealand's education quality assessment system 1 The adherence of organizations working in the field of independent assessment of the quality of education to uniform principles allows for a fairly detailed comparison of their main characteristics 2 The accreditation process at different stages and for different purposes involves all parties, one way or another interested in improving the quality of training: representatives of the public, students, teachers, international experts in the field of quality assessment and others 3 The system of organizations that guarantee the quality of higher education makes it possible to use all aspects of the activities of educational institutions as the subject of an independent expert assessment 4 High confidence in the results of an independent assessment of the quality of education, which are brought to the attention of government agencies that finance universities


Estimating Item Parameters and Student Abilities: An IRT 2PL Analysis of Mathematics Examination

Item response theory; Mathematics examination; Two parameter logistic. This research aims to describe the characteristics of math test instruments are tested on 373 of 10th-grade vocational high school students and to describe student abilities. The analysis was conducted using the Item Response Theory (IRT) approach with the 2 Parameter Logistic (2PL) model. The whole analysis process was conducted with the help of the R Program, SPSS and Excel. This finding shows that 2 items did not fit the 2 PL model. Of the 28 items that fit the 2PL model, 3 do not have a good discriminating index because they have negative values. Of 30 items that were tested, 3 items were very easy, 21 items were moderate, one item was difficult, and five items were very difficult. Student abilities ranged between -4.69 logit and 4.09 logit with an average of 0.05 logit. Based on the category, the proportion of students with moderate ability reached 63.54%, high ability 15.28%, very high ability 1.34%, while students with low ability were 19.57%, and very low ability was only 0.27%. The maximum information function of this test was 29,37 (has good category) on the ability (θ) of -0,8 logit and SEM of 0.18 logit. Overall, the test was suitable for students with abilities between -2,6 and 2,4 logit. Based on these results, 25 items can be included in the question bank with suggestions for improvement in the proportion of difficulty level to reach a normal curve balance. Article history:

INTRODUCTION
Evaluation plays an important role for the education world to provide information to assess the outcomes of students and improve the material and educational programs (Worten & Sanders, 1987). Four terms closely related to evaluation in the world of education are measurement, testing, assessment and evaluation. All of which are related to each other and form a hierarchy. Tests are conducted to determine students' abilities. Measurement plays a role in quantifying these abilities. Assessments explain and interpret measurement results, while evaluation determines the value or implications of a policy or decision. Thus, an evaluation activity will involve measurement and assessment (Mardapi, 2012: 6-7 ). Assessment of learning outcomes by educators is the process of collecting and processing information to measure the achievement of student learning outcomes in aspects of attitudes, knowledge, and skills which are conducted in a planned and systematic manner to monitor processes, learning progress, and improve learning outcomes (Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Kemdikbud RI, 2018). One component of assessing learning outcomes in schools is a formative assessment in the form of the Mid-Semester Examination conducted in the middle of the odd semester or even semester. Formative assessment is conducted throughout the semester, each item or sub-subject matter to determine the success and failure of the learning process (Istiyono, 2018). This assessment aims to improve learning strategies (Mardapi, 2012: 16).
Assessment and learning during the pandemic are conducted remotely with various methods and technological means to prevent the transmission of Covid-19. So is the Middle Semester Exam, where implementation uses a model Computerized Based Test (CBT), and students can do it online using devices such as handphones and computers from their homes. Although the CBT model has weaknesses, especially in terms of supervision, it also provides convenience to students and schools in implementing the test during the pandemic situation. This is because the CBT model can be implemented remotely, is easily accessible, and the order of questions and answer choices can be randomized to minimize the potential for fraud during implementation. Because this Mid-Semester Examination is a formative assessment, the results can be used to improve learning strategies, especially learning currently being implemented, namely distance learning.
According to Azwar (2016), a new test can be successful in running out its measuring function if it can provide accurate measurement results. Thus, the quality of the test is largely determined by the quality of the items. As with other assessment instruments, the instruments used in the Mid-Semester Examination must also meet the requirements and characteristics of a good instrument . One of them is instrument reliability which is the concept of the extent to which the measurement results can be trusted (Azwar, 2019). In objective type item analysis, item quality is also seen from several parameters, namely difficulty index, discriminant index and distractor effectiveness. The conclusion regarding the item's quality will lead to a decision regarding whether or not the item can be used, revised or replaced and whether the item meets the requirements to be included in the item bank or question bank (Azwar, 2016).
Based on the results of discussions with the teacher of mathematics SMK joined in MGMPs, obtained information that items analysis performed by the teacher during this time is merely a description of difficulty index and discriminant index of the Classical Test Theory approach. Item analysis has never been conducted, including estimating the instrument reliability and determining the characteristics of the items using the Item Response Theory (IRT)approach. According to Retnawati (2014), Classical Test Theory has several weaknesses, including group dependence, where the discriminant index and the difficulty index of the items are highly dependent on the average ability level, range and distribution of student abilities used as samples in the analysis. In addition, the student's acquisition score is highly dependent on the selection of the test used, not on the ability of the student. Some of the Classical Test Theory weaknesses were overcome by developing IRT (Mardapi, 2012).
The three main assumptions in the IRT are unidimensionality, local independence and parameter invariance (Hambleton & Swaminathan in Retnawati, 2014)). Local independence is the probability of answering correctly must be independent of each other while the unidimensional substances measured come from one dimension (Mardapi, 2012). Parameter invariance can be interpreted that a person's ability will not change because of solving test questions with different levels of difficulty, and the parameters of the test items will not change because they are tested on a group of test respondents with different levels of ability (Retnawati, 2014). The correlation between the probability of answering correctly on a scale of ability P(θ) is expressed by a correlation with item parameters that are used in which the number of parameters of this item to determine the model equations. The model l, which contains only the difficulty index parameter (b) is known as the Rasch Model or 1 logistic parameter (1 PL), while the model containing the difficulty index (b) and discriminant index (a) is called the 2 PL model. If it contains the difficulty index (b), discriminant index (a) and pseudo-guessing (c) are called 3 PL models (Retnawati, 2016).
The desired model must have properties which the characteristics of the items do not depend on the sample group or students who are subjected to the test, the score that states the student's ability does not depend on the test, the model is stated in the item level (not at the level of a set of tests), the level model does not require parallel tests to calculate the reliability coefficient and the model provides an appropriate measure for each ability score. At the same time, the reliability of the test is expressed in the test information function, which is the sum of the information functions of all test items (Hambleton et al., 1991). If in the Classical Test Theory student's abilities are expressed in the form of the number of correct answers, which depend on the level of difficulty of the test, then in the Item Response Theory, the estimation of student's abilities is conducted by using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) which involves test items that have been calibrated (Mardapi, 2012).
Based on these reasons, it is necessary to analyze the items using the IRT approach to estimate the reliability of the test and item parameters on the Mid-Semester Examination test and estimate student abilities. This analysis aims to provide information to schools regarding the characteristics of the questions that have been tested, estimate student abilities in the distance learning period and provide suggestions to question developers for improvement of the next questions. A further purpose of this analysis is to improve the distance learning strategy post-Middle Semester Exam and select the proper item inserted into the question bank.

METHODS
This research is quantitative descriptive research conducted at about Even Semester Mid-Exam in Vocational High School in Kalasan for 10th-grade mathematics courses. The data comes from the answer sheets for all students of 10th grade, which are 373 students. The data collected is in the form of student responses to the Even Semester Mid-Exam, which consists of 30 multiple choice questions with 5 options. Tests carried out with other modes of CBT (Computerized Based Test) remotely by using Moodle platform.
The analysis begins with the proof of unidimensionality assumption using factor analysis based on scree-plot and Eigenvalue on the unexplained variance (Retnawati, 2016). The factor analysis was preceded by an analysis of the adequacy of the sample based on the Chi-square value on the Bartlett test with the help of SPSS. At the same time, the assumption of local independence is evidenced by preparing a covariance matrix with the help of Excel. The last assumption is item parameter invariance and ability invariance, where item parameter invariance is proven by estimating item parameters in students who have been grouped into two groups. While the ability invariance is proven by estimating the ability using items that have been grouped into two groups. Both item parameter invariance and ability invariance are proven through scatter diagrams by checking whether the points obtained are relatively close to the line with a slope of 1 (Retnawati, 2014).
The model fit test was used to determine which of the four models was the most suitable for estimating item parameters and abilities with the item response theory approach on this test instrument. The model fit test in this research was conducted by comparing the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) values of the four models with the help of the R program. The most suitable model is the model that has the lowest AIC (Snipes & Taylor, 2014). Having obtained the most suitable model, the next step is to estimate the item parameters and student abilities by using those models. The estimation results are then interpreted by categorizing them according to a certain range. In addition to the two estimates, the value of the item information function, the test information function and the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) was also calculated to determine the reliability of the test.

Unidimensionality Assumption Test
The results of the sample adequacy analysis with the Bartlett test produce the following outputs.

Table 1 KMO and Bartlett'sTest Results
Based on Table 1, the obtained Chi-Square is 2066.262 with 435 degrees of freedom and the significance value of 0.00, which means that the significance of less than 0.05. With a level of significance of 5%, it can be concluded that the samples of 373 students is sufficient.
Unidimensionality assumption test using EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) with the help of SPSS produces a scree plot of Eigenvalues .

Figure 1 Scree Plot of Eigen Values of EFA Results
The scree plot is a plot between the eigenvalues and the number of main components formed and serves to determine the number of main components by taking into account the existing elbow faults (Tulak et al., 2017). Figure 1 shows that there are 10 factors that have an Eigen value of more than 1. However, there is only one dominant steepness so that it can be interpreted that in this instrument , there is one dominant factor with an Eigen value of more than 5. Based on these results, it can be concluded that this instrument is unidimensional. These results mean that each student's performance is assumed to be governed by a single factor known as ability (Eleje & Onah, 2018).

Model Fit Test
This model fit test aims to determine which analysis model best fits the data, whether the 1 Parameter Logistics (PL) model, 2 PL, 3 PL or 4 PL. If data fits into a model, then the item will behave consistently as expected by the model. There are several ways to test the model's fit, one of which is based on the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) value. This AIC value calculates the balance between the magnitude of the likelihood and the number of variables in the model. The most suitable model is the model that has the lowest AIC (Snipes & Taylor, 2014). The calculation of the AIC value in this research was conducted with the R program, where the smallest AIC was the AIC of the 2 PL model, which was 12229.01. The model fit test in this research was conducted at the beginning after the unidimensionality test because the results of the analysis of this suitable model would then be used for the local independence and invariance assumption test.

Local Independence Assumption Test
There are two types of local independence: local independence to student responses and local independence to items. Local independence on student responses means that there is no correlation between correct or not one student in answering an item and correct or not another participant in answering the same item. This local independence on student responses can be proven through a covariance matrix that aims to see whether participants' ability in the same group is independent of the item. While local independence to items means no correlation between correct or not a student in answering an item and correct or not that student in answering other items. This means that the probability of the student answering the item correctly is not affected by the answer that the student to the other items in the test (Purnama & Alfarisa, 2020). Local independence of this test item can also be detected by proving the unidimensionality assumption (Mars, 2010in Retnawati, 2014. The proof of the assumption of local independence on student responses is conducted by using a covariance matrix through several steps. Students are sorted based on their ability from highest to lowest in the first step, then divided into 10 groups. The ability used in sorting is the ability based on the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) value with the most suitable analytical model, which in the case of this instrument is the 2 PL model. The resulting covariance matrix with the help of Excel is as follows figure 2.

Figure 2 Covariance Matrix
Based on the matrix above, the covariance between one group and another is shown in the elements outside the main diagonal where the value is close to 0. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no correlation between correct or not one student in answering an item and other participants in answering these items so that local independence on student responses is met. This is in accordance with the opinion of Hambleton & Swaminathan (1985) that if the covariance value of the student's ability group is close to zero, then the local independence assumption test has been fulfilled. Support for this opinion is also expressed by (Ojerinde, 2013), namely that local independence does not mean that the items are not correlated with each other, but the performance on different items is independent but depends on the ability of students.

Parameter Invariance Assumption Test
Two invariances must be proven in fulfilling this assumption, namely the item parameter invariance and the ability parameter invariance. Item parameter invariance means that item parameters will not change if it is done by groups of students with different abilities. While the invariance of the ability parameters means that a student's ability will not change because of taking tests with different levels of difficulty (Retnawati, 2014).
Ability invariance test is conducted by estimating the ability of all respondents with response data from odd and even items separately. So this process requires two data, namely data containing the responses of all participants to odd items and data containing responses from all participants to even items. Then, estimation of the ability of each group was conducted by R program uses this data to produce two sets of the ability were then connected into a scatter plot with the help of Excel. Ability estimation was conducted using the Maximum A Posterior (MAP) method because when using the MLE estimation method, several respondents' abilities did not converge. This is because the number of items used to estimate the ability is half of the total items, which affects the estimate's stability. The effect of the number of tests on the stability of the ability estimate is in line with the results of research by Falani & Kumala (2017), which concludes that the longer the test used, the more accurate the estimation of the 2PL model's ability parameters. The scatter plot of the ability estimation with odd and even items produced in this research follows figure 3. Figure 3 above can be interpreted that the students' ability either is estimated through the odd or even items approaching the same point as the plot close to the line y = x. This shows that students' abilities do not change just because they work on items with different strengths and different levels of difficulty. Thus the invariance of the capability parameter is proven.

Figure 3 Scatter Plot Ability Invariance
The next proof is the proof of the item parameters invariance assumption which includes the discriminant index parameter and the difficulty index parameter because the estimation model is 2PL. Item parameter invariance is done by dividing the respondents into two groups, namely the upper serial number group and the lower serial number group. Then, the parameter estimation of all items is conducted by using the first group of respondents, followed by the estimation of all items parameters using the second group of respondents. Two sets of discriminant index parameters and two sets of difficulty index parameters are produced. The all items discriminant index produced by the first estimate is paired with the whole items discriminant index produced by the second estimate. With the help of Excel, the following scatter plot can be generated.

Figure 4 Discriminant Index Invariance Scatter plot
The points in the scatter plot in Figure 4 above are close to the y = x line so it can be said that the discriminant index estimated using the first group of respondents is almost the same as the discriminant index estimated using the second group of respondents. This indicates that the discriminant index does not change even though the test is solved by groups of respondents with different levels of ability. Thus the invariance of the discriminant index parameters is proven.
Proof of difficulty index invariance is done by pairing all items estimated using the first group of respondents with the difficulty index of all items estimated using the second group of respondents. The resulting scatter plot is as follows figure 5.

Figure 5 Difficulty Invariance Scatter Plot
Based on the scatter plot in Figure 5 above, it can be seen that the distribution of the resulting plot is close to the y = x line. This shows that the difficulty index estimated using the first group of respondents is almost the same as that of the second group of respondents. It can also be interpreted that the difficulty index does not change even though groups of respondents do it with different abilities. Thus the invariance of the difficulty index parameter is proven.

Item Parameter Estimation
The estimation of item parameters and the Chi-Square significance value generated through the 2PL model with the help of the R Program is as follows table 2. Based on the difficulty index table above, it can be seen that the distribution of item difficulty indexes is not balanced. This can be seen from the proportion of easy items of 0%, less than the number of items with a very easy difficulty level which reaches 10%. The imbalance can also be seen from the proportion of items with a level of difficulty that is difficult and very difficult, where the number of very difficult questions is actually more than the number of difficult items. This proportion is not ideal. One of the basic references in determining the proportion of the number of questions in the difficult, medium, and easy categories is a balance based on the direction of the normal curve (Sudjana, 2012). To achieve the normal curve balance, this test instrument needs to increase the proportion of easy and difficult questions and reduce the proportion of very easy and very difficult questions. In addition, it is also necessary to consider that the proportion of easy questions is not much different from the proportion of difficult questions and the proportion of very easy and very difficult questions.
There are three items that have bad criteria because they have a negative discriminant index and the difficulty index is less than -2, namely items number 15, 25 and 29. Item number 15 is a question regarding the conversion of an angle in polar coordinates into Cartesian coordinates, item number 25 is a question regarding the formula for the area of an octagon if the symbol for the radius of the outer circle is known and item number 29 is a question about trigonometric ratios of double angles . The negative discriminant index indicates that the higher the student's ability, the lower the chance of answering correctly. The difficulty index of less than -2 indicates that the question is very easy. Based on these two things, it can be concluded that these three questions can be answered very easily by students with lower abilities than students with higher abilities. Thus, these three items cannot be included in the question bank because they are not good questions.
The possible reason for these characteristics is that the three materials have not been accepted by students who actually have higher abilities but have been accepted by students with lower abilities. 10 th grade is taught by four different mathematics teachers so that it is also possible to differ in the sub-materials that are conveyed and their depth. Based on this phenomenon, the coordination between teachers at the beginning of the semester when compiling Syllabus, Semester Programs and Learning Plans (RPP) needs to be improved to synchronize the learning process.
Two items do not fit the 2PL model, namely numbers 1 and 28. This means that the response data from these two items do not behave as expected by the 2PL model. Item number 1 is about the value of tangen an angle in a right triangle while item number 28 is about the value of sinus a half-angle α. Because these two items do not fit the model, the discriminant index and the difficulty index cannot be explained. Thus, these two questions cannot be entered into the question bank.
The question bank has an important role in the development of quality exam questions. A question bank is not just a collection of questions, but a question bank refers to a process collected, monitored and stored in a database with relevant information (classified) in order to easily search and select questions for exam purposes (Widana, 2014). According to Choppin (1976), the question bank must be understood as a collection of test items organized in the form of a catalogue like the arrangement of books in a library, only that the question bank is equipped with calibrated data and item characteristics. Thus, when the test is composed of items taken from the question bank, this calibration can be used to determine the test's psychometric properties. In relation to item response theory, Yahya Umar in Suyata et al. (2010) stated that in a question bank developed with item response theory, tests could be made more flexible and appropriate because the characteristics of test items in item response theory do not depend on the characteristics of a student at the time of calibration. In addition, students' ability can be known and compared because the ability parameters can be estimated on the same scale. Thus, item analysis with the item response theory approach in this study will support the development of a question bank with the aim of improving the quality of mathematical assessment.

Ability Estimation
The estimated ability of 373 students using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method through the 2 PL model with the help of Program R is in the range of -4.69 logit and 4.09 logit with an average of 0.05 logit, median of 0.12 logit and mode of 0.09 logit. Further student abilities are presented in the description table as follows.

Ability (θ)
Interpretation Total Student Percentage θ > 3.00 Very High 5 1.34% 1.00 < θ < 3.00 High 57 15.28% -1.00 < θ < 1.00 Moderate 237 63.54% -3.00 < θ < -1.00 Low 73 19.57% θ < -3.00 Very Low 1 0.27% The table above illustrates that the ability with the largest proportion is the ability with medium criteria and less than 20% with low and very low criteria. This composition still needs to be improved through various efforts to improve learning and increase student learning motivation during the pandemic. For this reason, it is also necessary to study the theories and results of previous research regarding mathematical abilities.
Several factors influence mathematical ability. According to Dwianjani & Candiasa (2018), the factors that contribute to mathematical problem-solving abilities include; identifying problems (identify), defining goals (define), exploring possible strategies (explore), acting on strategies (act) and looking back (look). The improvement of students' mathematical abilities can be improved through several strategies including; the use of realistic mathematics-based teaching materials (Ulandari et al., 2019), the application of project-based learning and guided discovery learning (Supriadi et al., 2018), behaviour-based metacognition (Salam et al., 2020) and so on. Another point of view of improving students' abilities is the success of distance learning that is currently being implemented. Teachers and parents spearhead this effort. This is in line with the results of Syafari & Montessori's (2021) research, namely, the quality of online learning organized by teachers has a significant influence on students' learning motivation and has a significant influence on student learning outcomes.
Distance learning or distance education has different characteristics from face-to-face learning. Distance education is planned learning, which usually occurs in other places outside the teaching place. Therefore it requires special subject design techniques, special learning techniques, special methodologies of communication through various media, and special organizational and administrative arrangements (Moore & Kearley, 1996). Several factors influence the success and effectiveness of online learning. The effectiveness of online learning depends on technological factors, student characteristics and teacher characteristics. The teacher plays a central role in the effectiveness of online learning, it is not an important technology but the instructional application of technology from the teacher that determines the effect on learning, students who attend classes with instructors who have positive attitudes towards the distribution of learning and understanding of a technology will tend to produce a more positive learning (Pangondian et al., 2019).
In addition to the teacher's role, parents also have an equally important role, namely as teacher partners in the implementation of distance learning. This is because the family environment is the first social environment of students, which influences student behavior and motivation, especially during a pandemic where learning from home is an obligation. Regarding the role of parents in distance learning during this pandemic, a study conducted by Kusuma (2021) concluded that there is a significant relationship between parental attention and learning achievement and student learning discipline. Thus the attention and support of parents is very important in the effort to make distance learning success. In addition, collaboration and communication between teachers and parents is absolutely necessary to understand and provide solutions to problems that occur during distance learning so that students' abilities can be improved effectively.

Information Function and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)
The information function is an indicator of the reliability of a test, where in classical test theory, the reliability of a test is expressed in the reliability coefficient. This is in accordance with the opinion of Mulvia et al. (2021) that the information function of item response theory can be used to determine the consistency or reliability of test items. This function can explain for both the item level of the test and the level of the test where at the item level of the test, the information function states the constancy or strength of the test items in explaining the respondent's ability or latent trait as measured by the test (Myszkowski, 2019). Retnawati (2014) states that the item information function explains one of the strength of the item on the test while SEM is a measurement error that cannot be separated from each estimate. The information function and SEM have a quadratic inverse relationship, where the larger the information function, the smaller the SEM and vice versa (Hambleton et al., 1991). The function of information and SEM in this test instrument is presented in the following figure 6.

Figure 6 Test Information Function and SEM Graph
Based on the resulting graph above, the value of maximum Test Information Function (TIF) is 29,37 on the ability (θ) of -0,8 logit and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) of 0.18 logit. This means that the test produces optimal information when used on students with an ability of -0.8 logit. In addition, according to Hambleton (in Wiberg, 2004), a good (reliable) test has a Total Information Function (TIF) ≥ 10. Thus, this instrument is a good (reliable) instrument for measuring students' abilities. The TIF and SEM curves intersect at = -2.6 and 2.4, which means that this test is overall suitable for students with abilities between -2.6 and 2.4 logit because in this range, the value of the information function exceeds the error of measurement. This range also shows that the instrument is able to measure student's abilities with a fairly wide range.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and discussion above, it can be concluded that this test instrument consists of 25 items that are good and deserve to be included in the question bank for further use and 5 items that need to be replaced or revised. This is based on the difficulty index, discriminant index and compatibility with the 2PL model. The average and mode of student's abilities are in the medium category, while the median ability of students is in the high category so it still needs to be improved through various improvements to learning strategies and environmental support. As for the function of information and SEM on this test instrument, it can be concluded that this test can be used for measurement and is suitable for test-takers with abilities between -2.21 and 1.06 logit.
Suggestions that can be put forward regarding this test instrument are 1) improvement in the distribution of difficulty index so that the proportion of difficulty index close to the normal curve, 2) relates to learning practices in schools, it is needed initial coordination between all of teacher and synergy in the learning process so that students get material with relatively the same scope and depth, 3) related to improving student abilities, it is necessary to maximize the role and strategies of teachers in learning as well as the role and support of parents for student during distance learning to improve students' abilities, 4) improving the quality of communication and synergy between parents and teachers in solving problems that arise during distance learning is absolutely necessary so that learning runs optimally, and 5) based on the weaknesses found in this instrument, the suggestion for researchers and developers of the next question is in the planning of questions, it is better to involve items whose characteristics are known, which are called calibrated questions or questions that have been tested before. As for the items in this instrument that have been proven to have a good level of difficulty and discriminating power, they can be used by question developers or further researchers to improve the quality of mathematics assessment instruments. And vice versa, the questions that are not good can be revised or replaced with new items by considering the relevant indicators of competency achievement.