Kesahan dan Kebolehpercayaan Instrumen Kecerdasan Menghadapi Cabaran Teknologi Menggunakan Model Rasch (Validity and Reliability the Instruments Adversity Quotient for Technological Challenges Using the Rasch Model)
Abstract
Instrumen Kecerdasan Menghadapi Cabaran Teknologi telah dibina bagi mengukur tahap kecerdasan remaja dalam menghadapi cabaran teknologi menggunakan model CORE dan pemeriksaan ciri-ciri psikometriknya menggunakan model Rasch. Sampel dipilih berdasarkan pensampelan rawak mudah yang melibatkan tiga daerah di Selangor iaitu daerah Gombak, Kuala Langat dan Sepang. Kajian ini melibatkan 660 responden. Instrumen ini mengandungi empat konstruk iaitu konstruk kawalan, kepunyaan, jangkauan dan ketahanan. Data dianalisis menggunakan perisian Winsteps 3.73. Dapatan menunjukkan indeks kebolehpercayaan item adalah 0.96 dan indeks kebolehpercayaan individu adalah 0.91. Bacaan indeks pengasingan item adalah 5.76 dan indeks pengasingan individu adalah 3.11. Analisis polariti item menunjukkan nilai Point Measure Correlations adalah antara 0.29 hingga 0.55. Analisis unidimensi pula menunjukkan nilai varian reja terpiawai adalah 20.7% dan nilai varians yang tidak dijelaskan dalam kontras pertama adalah 5.7%. Manakala analisis kesesuaian item pula menunjukkan nilai Mean Squareinfit dan outfit berada antara 0.75 hingga 1.43. Bagi analisis kebebasan setempat nilai yang ditunjukkan adalah -0.25 hingga 0.41. Justeru kajian ini menyumbang kepada pembentukkan instrumen kecerdasan menghadapi cabaran teknologi yang berkualiti hasil pemeriksaan ciri psikometrik menggunakan Model Rasch. Selain itu, Kajian ini juga memberikan implikasi kepada perkembangan model CORE dalam konteks cabaran yang berbeza iaitu cabaran teknologi. Hal ini dapat membantu pihak sekolah bagi merancang program khas bagi tujuan pembangunan diri murid agar kekal relevan serta berdaya saing dalam era perkembangan teknologi. Selain itu, instrumen ini dapat membantu murid untuk mengenal pasti tahap kecerdasan menghadapi cabaran bagi diri sendiri serta mampu berusaha untuk meningkatkan lagi kecemerlangan diri dan berupaya bersaing di peringkat global.
Kata kunci: Kesahan; kebolehpercayaan; model Rasch; cabaran teknologi; jangkauan dan ketahanan
Abstract
An instruments Adversity Quotient for Technological Challenges have been developed to measure adolescents’ level of intelligence in facing technological challenges using the CORE model and to examine their psychometric properties using Rasch models. The samples were selected based on simple random sampling involving three districts in Selangor namely Gombak, Kuala Langat and Sepang. This study involved 660 respondents. The instrument contains four constructs namely control, origin, reach and endurance. Data were analyzed using Winsteps 3.73 software. The findings show that the item reliability index is 0.96 and the individual reliability index is 0.91. The item separation index showed 5.76 and the individual separation index showed 3.11. Item polarity analysis showed that the values of Point Measure Correlations ranged from 0.29 to 0.55. The unidimensional analysis showed that the standard deviation value of the variance was 20.7% and the variance value unexplained in the first contrast was 5.7%. Meanwhile, item fit analysis showed that Mean Square infit and outfit values ranged from 0.75 to 1.43. For the analysis of local independence the values shown are -0.25 to 0.41. Therefore, this study contributes to the development of intelligence instruments in the face of high technology challenges resulting from the examination of psychometric features using Rasch Model. In addition, this study also has implications for the development of the CORE model in the context of different technological challenges. This can help schools design special programs for the purpose of student self-development to remain relevant and competitive in this era of technological development. In addition, these instrument help students identify the challenges they face and can further enhance their self-esteem and compete globally.
Keywords: Validity; reliability; Rasch model; technology challenges; reach and endurance
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Adams, K. A., & Lawrence, E.K. 2019. Research Methods, Statistics, and Applications. Edisi ke-2. United State of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Arasinah Kamis, Ab. Rahim Bakar, Ramlah Hamzah, Soaib Asimiran & Norhaily Abdul Halim. (2013). Competency assesment of clothing fashion design: Rasch measurement model for construct validity and reliability. Journal of Technical Education and Training 5(2):1-13.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. 2019. Introduction to Research in Education. Edisi ke-10. United State of America: Wadsworth Publishing.
Azrilah Abdul Aziz, Mohd Saidfudin Masodi, Azami Zaharim. 2017. Asas Model Pengukuran Rasch Pembentukan Skala Dan Struktur Pengukuran. Edisi ke-3. Bangi, Selangor: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Balsamo, M., Giampaglia, G., & Saggino, A. 2014. Building a new Rasch-based self- report inventory of depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 10: 153- 165.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C.M. 2007. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Edisi ke-2. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bond, T. G. , & Fox, C.M. 2015. Applying The Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement In The Human Sciences. Edisi ke-3. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E.D. 2012. Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. Edisi ke-8. McGraw-Hill Education.
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E.D. 2018. Psychological Testing and Assessment : An introduction to test and measurement. Edisi ke-9. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Conrad, K. M., Conrad, K. J., Dennis, M. L., & Funk, R. 2012. Validation of the self help improvement scale to the rasch measurement model gain methods report 1.0.
Chicago.http://gaincc.org/_data/files/Psychometrics_and_Publications/Working _Papers/Conrad_et_al_2011_SPS_Report.pdf [20 April 2018].
Creswell, J.W. 2018. Educational Research : Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Edisi ke-6. United States of America: Pearson Education, Inc.
Croker, L.M. & Algina, J. 1986. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Croker, L.M. & Algina, J. 2008. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Mason. Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Dolnicar, S., Grun, B., Leisch, F. & Rossiter, J. 2011. Three good reason not to use five and seven point Likert items. 21st CAUTHE National Conference. Adelaide, Australia, 8(11): 8–11.
Fisher; W.P.J. 2006. Survey design recommendations. Rasch Measurement Transactions 20(3): 1072–1076.
Fisher, W.P.J. 2007. Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 21(1): 1095.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. 2012. Educational research: competencies for analysis and applications. Edisi ke-10. Boston: Pearson.
Ghazali Darusalam & Sufean Hussin. 2018. Metodologi Penyelidikan Dalam Pendidikan : Amalan Dan Analisis Kajian. Edisi ke-2. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.
Gregory, R.J. 2011. Psychological Testing : History, Principles and Aplication. Edisi ke-6. United State: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hambelton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. 1985. Item Response Theory Principles and Aplication. Springer Science : Business Media LCC
Hanum, L. 2018. Differences in student adversity intelligence by gender. International Journal for Educational, Social, Political & Cultural Studies 1(November): 115– 128.
Hema, G. & Gupta, S.M. 2015. Adversity quotient for prospective higher education. The International Journal of Indian Psychology 2(3): 49–64.
Hudiya Adzhar, Aidah Abdul Karim & Muhammad Uzair Sahrin. 2017. Pembangunan instrumen penerimaan e-pembelajaran pascasiswazah menggunakan analisis Rasch. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia 42(2):147-155. http:dx.doi.org/10.1757/JPEN-2017-42.02-08.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. 2018. Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications And Issues. Edisi ke-9. Wadsworth: Cencage Learning.
Kline, R.B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Methodology in the Social Sciences). Edisi ke-3. New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Lin, C. & Russell, E.M. 2008. Comparisons between classical test theory and item response theory in automated assembly of parallel test forms in automated assembly of parallel test forms. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment 6(8): 4–42.
Linacre, J. M. 2005. A User’s Guide to Winsteps: Rasch Model Computer Programs. Chicago: MESA Press.
Linarce, J.M. 2007. A User’s Guide to Winsteps Rasch-Model Computer Programs. Chicago: MESA Press.
Lucian, R. 2016. Rethinking the use of likert scale: Tradition or technical choice. Brazillian Journal of Marketing Opinion, and Media Research 18: 13–30.
M. Randi Gentamandika Putra, Nur Oktavia Hidayati, & Ikeu Indah. 2016. Hubungan motivasi berprestasi dengan adversity quotient warga binaan remaja di LPKA Kelas II Sukamiskin Bandung. Jurnal Pendidikan Keperawatan Indonesia 2(1): 52–61.
Mills, G. E., & Gay, L.R. 2018. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Edisi ke-12. Boston: Pearson.
Mohd Effendi @ Ewan Mohd Matore. 2015. Pembinaan Instrumen kecerdasan menghadapi cabaran (IKBAR) bagi pelajar politeknik menggunakan Model Rasch. Tesis Dr. Fal, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin, Rohany Nasir, Wan Shahrazad Wan Sulaiman, Rozainee Khairudin & Zainah Ahmad Zamani. 2017. Validity and Psychometric Properties of Malay Translated Religious Orientation Scale-Revised among Malaysian Adult Samples. Akademika 87(2):133-144.
Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin, Rohany Nasir, Wan Shahrazad Wan Sulaiman, Sarah Waheeda Muhammad Hafidz, Janetter Marcial@Nur Atiqah Abdullah, Rozainee Khairudin & Zainah Ahmad Zamani. 2018. Validity and Reliability of Malay Version Financial Well-Being Scale among Malaysian Employees. Akademika 88(2):109-120
Nazlinda Abdullah & Lim Beh. 2013. Parallel circuit conceptual understanding test (PCCUT). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90: 431–440.
Nor Mashitah Mohd Radzi. 2017. Pembinaan dan pengesahan instrumen pentaksiran prestasi standard awal pembelajaran dan perkembangan awal kanak-kanak. Tesis Dr. Fal, Universiti Malaya.
Neuman, W.L. 2014. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Edisi ke-7. United State of Amerika: Pearson Education Limited.
Nunnally J., & Bernstein, I.H. 1994. Psychometric Theory. Edisi ke-3. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Primatika Fatma Rahastyana & Laily Rahmah. 2010. Kewirausahaan dalam kaitannya dengan adversity quotien dan emotional quotien. Jurnal Psikologi Proyeksi 5(1): 52–64.
Rasch G. 1980. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Rikkert, M. V. D. L., Wim, J.C.M, Grift, V. D., & Veen, K.D. 2018.
Developing an instrumen for teacher feedback using the Rasch model to explore teachers development of effective teaching strategies an behaviors. The Journal of Experimental Education 86(2):247-264.
Ruhaibah Hassan. 2015. Ciri-ciri psikometrik “Malaysian university selection inventory” (MUnSyI ) menggunakan model pengukuran Rasch. Tesis Dr. Fal, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Salkind, N.J. 2010. Face validity Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Salbiah Mohd Salleh. 2018. Pembinaan dan pengesahan instrumen penilaian kendiri akhlak guru pendidikan islam. Tesis Dr. Fal, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Sekaran Uma & Bougie Roger. 2016. Research Methods For Business: A Skill Building Approach. Edisi ke-7. New Delhi: John Wiley & Sons.
Siti Eshah, M. 2018. Aplikasi Teori Respon Item. Perak: Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim.
Siti Rahaya Ariffin. 2008. Inovasi dalam Pengukuran & Penilaian Pendidikan. Bangi Selangor: Fakulti Pendidikan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Song, J.H. & Woo, H.Y. 2015. A study on AQ (adversity quotient), job satisfaction and turnover intention according to work units of clinical nursing staffs in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 8(S8):74-78.
Stoltz. 1997. Adversity quotient : turning obstacles into opportunities. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Suhaniya Kalaisilven dan Mohamad fauzi Sukimi. 2019. Kawalan Ibu Bapa terhadap Anak-anak Dalam Penggunaan Media Sosial.Akademika 89(1):111-124.
Tuckman, B. W. & Harper, B.E. 2012. Conducting Educational Research. 6th editio. United Kingdom: Rowman Littlefield Publisher, Inc.
Urbina, S. 2004. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
Wahyu Hidayat. 2018. Pembinaan dan pengesahan inventori karakter bangsa pelajar sekolah menengah atas. Tesis Dr. Fal, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Wright, B.D. & Masters, G.N. 1982. Rating Scale Analysis : Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H. & Nikanfar, A.R. 2015. Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of Caring Sciences 4(2): 165–178.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN: 0126-5008
eISSN: 0126-8694