Observation instrument for student social attitude in primary schools: Validity and reliability

Ari Setiawan; Widowati Pusporini; Hanandyo Dardjito

doi:10.21831/pep.v24i1.31868

Observation instrument for student social attitude in primary schools: Validity and reliability

Ari Setiawan, Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa, Indonesia
Widowati Pusporini, Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa, Indonesia
Hanandyo Dardjito, Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa, Indonesia

10.21831/pep.v24i1.31868

Abstract

This study aims to (1) identify the content validity of observations of students' social attitudes, (2) identify the construct validity of the observation instruments of students 'social attitudes, and (3) identify the reliability of observations of students' social attitudes. The subjects of this study were grades IV and V of elementary school students in Yogyakarta province selected using cluster random sampling. Observation guidelines were used to collect the data using a summative rating scale model. The content validity was analyzed by applying Aiken assisted by Microsoft Excel, the construct validity by using second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis assisted by Lisrel, and the reliability by using the Omega reliability approach. The results indicate that all items are valid by which the content validity. The construct validity with the Confirmatory Factor Analysis is high. The reliability values of the observation instruments are reliable.

Keywords

validity; reliability; observation instrument

Full Text:

PDF

References

Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2007). Tes psikologi (psychological testing). PT Prehanllindo.

Azwar, S. (2014). Validitas dan reliabilitas. Pustaka Pelajar.

Coaley, K. (2014). An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221556

Fuad, G. D. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Teori, konsep, & aplikasi dengan program Lisrel 8.54. UNDIP Press.

Graham, J. R., & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Handbook of psychology: Volume 10, assessment psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Isgiyanto, A. (2009). Teknik pengambilan sampel pada penelitian non-eksperimental. Mitra Cendikia.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Scientific Software International.

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2017). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Nelson Education.

Kartowagiran, B., Hadi, S., Wahyumiani, N., Alfarisa, F., & Pusporini, W. (2019). Effectiveness of the AA “4C” authentic assessment model: A single-case-research (SCR). The New Educational Review, 57(3), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2019.57.3.16

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (PSY 200 (300) quantitative methods in psychology) (4th ed.). Henry Holt.

Kumaidi, K. (2014). Validitas dan pemvalidasian instrumen penilaian karakter. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Psikometri.

Mardapi, D. (2017). Pengukuran, penilaian, dan evaluasi pendidikan (2nd ed.). Parama Publishing.

McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6

Munby, H. (1997). Issues of validity in science attitude measurement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4<337::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-S

Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Pada, A. U. T., Mustakim, S. S., & Subali, B. (2018). Construct validity of creative thinking skills instrument for biology student teachers in the subject of human physiology. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 22(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v22i2.22369

Peterson, C. H., Schulz, E. M., & Engelhard Jr., G. (2011). Reliability and validity of bookmark-based methods for standard setting: Comparisons to Angoff-based methods in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00200.x

Retnawati, H. (2016a). Proving content validity of self-regulated learning scale (The comparison of Aiken index and expanded Gregory index). REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 2(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v2i2.11029

Retnawati, H. (2016b). Validitas reliabilitas dan karakteristik butir (Panduan untuk peneliti, mahasiswa, dan psikometrian). Nuha Medika.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1–16). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50005-8

Schnabel, K., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2013). Free associations as a measure of stable implicit attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 27(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1890

Setiawan, A., Mardapi, D., Supriyoko, S., & Andrian, D. (2019). The development of instrument for assessing students’ affective domain using self- and peer-assessment models. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12326a

Setiawan, A., & Suardiman, S. P. (2018). Assessment of the social attitude of primary school students. REiD (Research and Evaluation in Education), 4(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v4i1.19284

Shroff, R. H., Ting, F. S. T., & Lam, W. H. (2019). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ perceptions of technology-enabled active learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4472

Stiggins, R. J. (2005). High quality classroom assessment: What does it really mean? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(2), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00241.x

Sunyoto, D. (2012). Validitas dan reliabilitas. Nuha Medika.

Suryani, H., Kartowagiran, B., & Jailani, J. (2017). Development and validity of mathematical learning assessment instruments based on multiple intelligence. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 21(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v21i1.15286

Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. M. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. Pearson.

Trinidad, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2005). Development, validation and use of the Online Learning Environment Survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1343

Viswanathan, M. (2005). Measurement error and research design. SAGE Publications.

Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v24i1.31868