Fitur Non Konten dan Intensitas Konten Ukur pada Butir Skala Psikologi
(1) Jurusan Psikologi, Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
(2) Jurusan Psikologi, Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Abstract
Selain mengukur suatu konten tertentu berdasarkan konstruk yang diukur, sebuah butir dalam skala psikologi memiliki berbagai macam atribut atau fitur yang tidak berkaitan dengan konten ukur (fitur non konten). Penelitian ini mengeksplorasi salah satu klasifikasi berdasarkan fitur non konten butir berupa ciri sifat dimanifestasikan (misalnya, aksi dan afeksi). Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menemukan kaitan antara fitur non konten tersebut dengan intensitas atau kedalaman ukur suatu butir pada skala psikologi. Penelitian ini menggunakan data dari Projek SAPA yang aktif melakukan penelitian terkait pengukuran kepribadian (N = 54.855). Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa tidak didapatkan keterkaitan antara fitur non konten (aksi, kognisi, afeksi, preferensi) dengan intensitas pengukuran yang menunjukkan probabilitas persetujuan responden terhadap pernyataan di dalam butir. Simpulan ini didukung dari hasil analisis yang dilakukan dengan menggunakan perbandingan parameter lokasi butir melalui analisis butir berbasis pemodelan Rasch. Hasil pengujian statistika menunjukkan tidak terdapat perbedaan dalam hal parameter lokasi butir dengan fitur non konten butir.
Instead of assessing a specific content based on the construct being measured, item of a psychological scale has various attributes or features that are not related to the measured content (non-content related features). This study explores one of the classifications based on non-item content features in the form of how traits are manifested (e.g., action and affection). This study finds the relationship between these features and the intensity or depth of measurement of item on a psychological scale. This study uses data from the SAPA Project which is actively conducting research related to personality measurement across countries (N = 54,855). Analysis results show that there is no relationship between four item non-content features (action, cognition, affection, preference) and the item intensity that indicates the probability of respondents' agreement with the statements of item. This conclusion is supported by the finding the analysis carried out using a comparison of item location parameters obtained from modern item analysis based on Rasch modeling. The results of statistical tests show that there is no difference in terms of item location parameters with non-item content features.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
APA, AERA, & NCME. (2014). The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. American Educational Research Association
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors: A Review of Research and Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 139-152. Doi: 10.1177/1088868314523838
Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 335-344. Doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013
Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., Davison, H. K., & VanHook, J. B. (2004). Incremental Validity of the Frame-of-Reference Effect in Personality Scale Scores: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 150-157. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.150
Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., & Vanhook, J. B. (2004). Incremental Validity of the Frame-of-Reference Effect in Personality Scale Scores : A Replication and Extension. 89(1), 150--157. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.150
Bradburn, N. M. (2004). Asking questions : the definitive guide to questionnaire design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Burns, D. D. (1989). The Feeling Good Handbook. William Morrow and Company.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 88-106. Doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.88
Condon, D. M., Roney, E., & Revelle, W. (2017). A SAPA Project Update: On the Structure of phrased Self-Report Personality Items. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 5(1). Doi: 10.5334/jopd.32
Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens. Hartcourt, Inc.
DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos Maarten, W., Nordgren Loran, F., & van Baaren Rick, B. (2006). On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science, 311(5763), 1005-1007. Doi: 10.1126/science.1121629
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 Years After Likert: Thurstone Was Right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3(4), 465-476. Doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01273.x
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3(4), 465-476. Doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01273.x
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 197-221. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197
Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2013). Psychometrics: An Introduction. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gruszka, A., Matthews, G., & Szymura, B. (2010). Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition Attention, Memory, and Executive Control. Springer Science.
He, T.-h. (2019). Personality Facets, Writing Strategy Use, and Writing Performance of College Students Learning English as a Foreign Language. SAGE Open, 9(3), 2158244019861483. Doi: 10.1177/2158244019861483
Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Cengage Wadsworth.
Kline, P. (2015). A Handbook of Test Construction. Routledge.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329-358. Doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Li, F., Cohen, A., & Shen, L. (2012). Investigating the Effect of Item Position in Computer-Based Tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 49(4), 362-379. Doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2012.00181.x
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694. Doi: 10.2466/pr0.3.7.635-694
Mael, F. A. (1991). A conceptual rationale for the domain and attributes of biodata items. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 763-792.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth–fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. 17(6), 609-626. Doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199611)17:6<609::Aid-job1828>3.0.Co;2-k
Peabody, D. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality perception: A reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(4), 639-646. Doi: 10.1037/h0030259
Qasem, N., Ali, M., Gul, A., & Bilal, S. (2014). Effect of Items Direction (Positive or Negative) on the Factorial Construction and Criterion Related Validity in Likert Scale. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 17(3), 77-84.
Revelle, W. (2008). The Contribution Of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory To Personality Theory. In P. J. Chorr (Ed.), Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality. Cambridge University Press.
Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, Purpose and Teleology. 10(1), 18-24. Doi: 10.1086/286788
Salazar, M. S. (2015). El dilema de combinar ítems positivos y negativos en escalas. Psicothema, 27(2), 192–199. Doi: 10.7334/psicothema2014.266
Saucier, G., Ostendorf, F., & Peabody, D. (2001). The Non-Evaluative Circumplex of Personality Adjectives. 69(4), 537-582. Doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.694155
Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607-620. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.607
Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219-241. Doi: 10.1080/13594320244000148
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Cognitive Psychology. Wadsworth.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. University of Chicago Press.
Werner, P. D., & Pervin, L. A. (1986). The Content of Personality-Inventory Items. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 622-628. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.622
Widhiarso, W. (2010). Model Politomi dalam Teori Respons Butir. Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Widhiarso, W. (2016). Mengakomodasi Efek Metode dalam Pengujian Validitas Konstruk Melalui Analisis Faktor Konfirmatori. Jurnal Psikologi Psikologia, 1(1), 37--51. Doi: 10.21070/psikologia.v1i1.478
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing Measures. An Item Response Modeling Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. Doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.