Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal The Journal of Indonesia Sustainable Development Planning (JISDeP)
Agus Saptono
Secretariat of the Directorate General of Vocational Education, Special Education, and Special Educational Services Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, Jakarta, Indonesia
Economics, Econometrics & Finance Energy Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
One Test Cannot Serve Two Masters: Validity Risks in Integrating Indonesia's National Assessment with the Academic Ability Agus Saptono
The Journal of Indonesia Sustainable Development Planning Vol 7 No 2 (2026): August
Publisher : Pusbindiklatren Bappenas

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.46456/jisdep.v7i2.1245

Abstract

Pusat Standar dan Kebijakan Pendidikan (PSKP, 2026) proposes to merge Indonesia's National Assessment (Asesmen Nasional, AN) with the Academic Ability Test (Tes Kemampuan Akademik, TKA) into a single assessment database serving both institutional quality evaluation and student selection. The administrative case for doing so is not in dispute here. What is in dispute is the measurement premise beneath it: that one instrument carrying high-stakes consequences for individual students can simultaneously yield valid low-stakes evidence about school quality. This commentary argues that it cannot, and that the indicators extracted from such an instrument will describe test-taking behaviour and access to private tutoring more faithfully than they describe teaching and learning. The proposal begins with one central assumption, namely that a single assessment instrument is capable of producing distinct forms of evidence that support fundamentally different evaluative purposes (Newton, 2010). Before considering such integration, it is important to recognize the conceptual and operational differences between the two assessment systems. Table 1 summarizes these key distinctions, highlighting the contrasting philosophical foundations and implementation characteristics of each model.
Co-Authors