The aim of this study was to develop the instrument(s) to access the senior high school (SHS) student competence of cognitive process and product dimensions on Biology. The developed instruments were written objective test in form of multiple-choice test and objective description test (multiple-choice test with argumentation). The research modified the instrument item development procedure from L.L. Oriondo & E.M. Dallo-Antonio (2008). The procedure consists of (1) instrument item drafting, and (2) field testing. The item drafting was be done via (a) determining aspects of  competence to test, (b) determining a relevant biology subject matter(s), (c) developing table of instrument specification, (d) constructing the instrument items, (e) composing criteria for scoring, (f) reviewing the instrument item(s), and (g) revising. The field testing was being done in April-October 2016 involving 1126 Biology SHS students came from 4 representative provinces of Indonesia as respondent. The field testing data was be analyzed descriptively using QUEST, BILOG, and Parscale to find-out validity and reliability of the instrument items, including the goodness of fit, difficulty index, reliability estimate, item characteristic curve (ICC), Standard Error of Measurement (SEM), and standard error of measurement (SEM).  Results of the research showed that the developed instrument was valid and reliable. The objective test items have an INFIT MNSQ 1,00 and standard deviation of 0,04; The objective description test items have an INFIT MNSQ 1,00 and standard deviation of 0,13. Difficulty indexes for the test items were in good criteria (ranged -0.75 to +0,7). Reliabilities of item estimate were 0,94 (for objective test item) and 0.80 (for objective description test item). ICC for almost all objective test items showed the high ability and showed the low ability for almost all objective description test items. SEMs for the item were -1,5 < θ < 2,5 (for objective test) and -2,7 < θ <  1,9 (for objective description test); Its means the items were fit for student with low and high ability.

Anderson L.R, Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. A Bridged Edition. New York: Longman.

Azwar, S. (2015). Reliability and validity. Yogyakarta: Student Library.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Bond & Fox. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model: the fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd Ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dettmer. (2006). New Blooms in established fields: Four Domains of Learning and Doing. Proquest Education Journals, 28(2), 164-178.

Furchan, A. (2011). Pengantar penelitian dalam pendidikan)  (Research introduction in education). Pustaka Pelajar. Yogyakarta

IEA. (2011). TIMSS & PIRLS.IEA Sites. Accessed on October 26, 2016, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/data-release-2011/pdf/Overview-TIMSS-and-PIRLS-2011-Achievement.pdf.

Istiyono, E. (2014). Measurement of high-level thinking skills of high school physics students in DIY (Doctoral dissertation). Yogyakarta: State University of Yogyakarta.

Majid, A. 2014. Penilaian autentik proses dan hasil belajar. Bandung PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Mardapi, D. (2008). Mechanical preparation of test and nontest instruments. Yogyakarta: Cendikia Partners Press.

Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. (2008). Science And Technology 11. Integrated Resource Package 2008. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data.

Neil, L.M. (2010). Contradictions of school reform: Educational Coast Of Standardized Testing. (electronically version). New York: Taylor & Francis e-library

Nitko, A.J.& Brookhart, S.M. (2011). Educational assessment of student (6th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Oriondo, L.L. & Dallo-Antonio, E.M. (2008). Evaluation of educational outcomes. Manila: Rex Printing Company, Inc.

Paidi. (2009). Developing of Problem-Based Instruction Materials on Biology and Metacognitive Strategy and Its Effectiveness to Metacognitive Awareness, Problem Solving Skill, and Subject Matter Mastering of High School Student in Sleman-Yogyakarta. Doctoral dissertation, unpublished. Malang: University of Malang.

Panaoura, A &  Philippou, G. (2006). The measurement of young pupils´ metacognitive ability in mathematics: The Case of Self-Representation and Self-Evaluation. Department of Education, University of Cyprus. Direct access: http://cerme4.crm.es/Papers%20definitius/2/panaoura.philippou.pdf.

Reiss, M., Behr, M., Lesh, R., & Post, T. (1985). Cognitive Processes And Products in Proportional Reasoning. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 352-356). Noordwijkerhout (Utrecht), Holland: PME.

Retnawati, H. (2016). Validity, reliability, and characteristics of the grain. Yogyakarta: Parama Publishing.

Subali, B. (2012). Test measurement science process skills divergent patterns of biological subjects.Yogyakarta State University.

Suciati. (2015). Memahami hakikat dan karakteristik pembelajaran biologi dalam upaya menjawab tantangan Abad X1 serta optimalisasi impelementasi Kurikulum 2013. Surakarta: UNS.

Sumintono, B. & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Rasch modelling applications in educational assessment. Cimahi: Trim Komunikata.

Tutkun O.F, Guzel D, Koroğlu M, Ilhan H. (2012).  Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and Critics on It. TOJCE: The on line Journal of Counselling and Education,1(3), 253-269.

Widodo, A. (2006). Revisi taksonomi boom dan pengembangan butir soal. Bandung. Buletin Puspendik, 3(2), 18-29.

Widoyoko, E.P. (2014). Schools learning outcomes assessment. Yogyakarta. Pustaka Pelajar

Wilson, M. (2005).Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.

Wu, X.N, Wu, X. & Wang, W. (2016). How Do Cognitive and Affective Trust Impact Process Outcome Interaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 44(8), 153-174.

Yu-Mei Lin & Pei-Chen Lee. (2013). The practice of business’s teacher teaching: Perspective from critical thinking. Taipei: China Institute of Technology.