•  
  •  
 

Keywords

scaling, multiple intelligence instrument, Thurstone type, Likert type

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk: 1) mengetahui hasil penskalaan instrumen multiple intelligences (MI) pada tipe Thurstone dan Likert dengan pendekatan klasik, 2) mengetahui karakteristik instrument MI pada tipe Thurstone dan Likert pada data asli dan data yang diskalakan, 3) membandingkan karakteristik psikometrik pada kedua tipe data yang sudah diskalakan. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif yang pelaksanaannya terdiri dari empat bagian yang saling terkait, yaitu penelitian pengembangan instrumen, penskalaan pada data hasil ujicoba, analisis karakteristik psikometrik instrumen, dan perbandingan karakteristik psikometrik instrumen. Instrumen dikembangkan menggunakan tipe Thurstone dan Likert pada konstruk yang sama. Perbandingan karakteristik psikometrik kedua instrumen dilakukan secara diskriptif. Hasil penskalaan dengan metode paired comparison didapatkan urutan skor stimulus dari yang terendah yaitu: logika matematika, musik, linguistik, kinestetik, naturalis, visual, interpersonal, eksistensial dan intrapersonal. Penskalaan dengan metode summated rating dihasilkan skor terstandar dari yang rendah hingga tinggi pada tiap respons. Terdapat perubahan skor, varian, reliabilitas dan kesalahan baku pengukuran (SEM) dari data asli dengan data yang diskalakan. Koefisien reliabilitas dan SEM instrumen tipe Thurstone lebih rendah dibanding tipe Likert.

Kata kunci: penskalaan, multiple intelligences, tipe Thurstone, tipe Likert

______________________________________________________________

SCALING CLASSICAL THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES CLASSICAL INSTRUMENT TYPE THURSTONE AND LIKERT

Abstract The study aimed to: 1) result the scaling data of multiple intelligence (MI) instruments of Thurstone and Likert types using the classical approach, 2) reveal the psychometric characteristics of Thurstone and Likert types in the original data and the scaled data, 3) compare the psychometric characteristics of the two types of data. The study used the quantitative research approach. The activity consisted of: developing instruments, processing the data scaling, analyzing the psychometric characteristics of the instruments, and comparing the psychometric characteristics of them. The instrument was developed using Thurstone and Likert types in the same constructs. The comparison of psychometric characteristics of two types of data was analyzed by descriptive statistic. The result of scaling using paired comparison method are the sequential scores from a low to high on mathematical-logical, musical, linguistic, kinesthetic, natural, visual, interpersonal, existential and intrapersonal inteligence. The scaling using summated rating produce scores that vary in each response. There are changes of variants and standard error of measurement (SEM) after transformed data. The reliability and SEM of the Thurstone type are lower than that of Likert type.

Keywords: scaling, multiple intelligence instrument, Thurstone type, Likert type

First Page

259

Last Page

274

Issue

2

Volume

17

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v17i2.1699

References

Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduc- tion to measurement theory. Monterey : Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Azwar, S. (1999). Dasar-dasar psikometri.

Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar Offset.

Azwar, S. (2012). Penyusunan skala psikologis (Edisi 2). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar Offset.

Barclay, J.E. & Weaver, H.B. (1962). Com- parative reliabilities and ease of cons- truction of Thurstone and Likert atti- tude scales. The Journal of Social Psycho- logy, 58, 109-120.

Brennan, R. L. (2006). Educational measure- ment (4nd Edition). Westport: An Im- print of Greenwood Publishing Group. Inc.

Carifio, J. & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Edu- cation. 42, 1150–1152.

Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark,S., Prewett, M., Gray, A.A., Stilson, F. R.,& Tuttle,M.

D. (2009). Normative scoring of multidimensional pairwise preference personality scales using IRT: empirical comparisons with other formats. Human Performance, 22, 105– 127.

Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment, An introduction to tests and measurement (6nd Edition). New York: The McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc.

Cronbach, L. J., Schönemann, P., & Mc Kie, D., (1965). Alpha coefficients for stratified-parallel tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 291-312.

Davies, R.S. (2008). Designing a response scale to improve average group res- ponse reliability. Evaluation and Re- search in Education, 21, 134.

Dunn-Rankin, P., Knezek, G. A., Wallace,

S. & Zhang, S. (2004). Scaling methods, (2nd Edition). Mahwah : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ebel, R. L. & Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essen- tials of educational measurement. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc.

Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics an introduction. Los Ange- less: Sage Publications

Glenberg, A. M.(1988). Learning from data, an introduction to statistical reasoning. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.

Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric Methods (2nd Edition). Tokyo: Kõgakusha company, ltd.

Gulliksen, H., (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.

Jamieson , S. (2004). Likert scales: How to use them. Medical Education, 38, 1212

Kendall, M. G. & Smith,B. B. (1940). On the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 31, 324-345.

Mardapi, Djemari. (2008). Teknik penyusunan instrumen tes dan nontes. Yogyakarta: Mitra Cendekian Offset.

Kwan, Y.K. & Chiu, L.L. (2007). Modifi- cation and siplication of thurstone scalling method and its demons- tration with crime seriousness assess- ment. The Hong Politecnic University Research Commity.

Laerhoven H, van der Zaag-Loonen H.J., &Derkx B.H.F. (2004). A comparison of Likert scale and visualanalogue scales as response options in chil- dren’s questionaires. Acta Pædiatrik, 93, 830–835.

Likert, R. (1932). Technigue for the mea- surement of attitudes. New York City: Archives of Psychology.

Lord, F.M. & Novick, M.R. (1974). Statistical theories of mental test scores. New York: Addison-Wesley Publish- ing Company, Inc.

Massof, R.W. (2004). Likert and Guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidermiolo- gy, 11, 381-399

McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test Theory : A unified threament. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

McIver, J.P. & Carmines, E.G. (1986). Uni- dimensional scaling. London: Sage Publi- cations. Inc

Olivares, A.M. & Bo¨ckenholt, U. (2005). Structural equation modeling of pair- ed-comparison and ranking data. Psy- chological Methods, 10, 285–304

Salkind, N. J. (2013). Test and measurement for people who hate tests and mea- surement. Los Angels: SAGE Publi- cation, Inc.

Shaw, M.E. & Wright, J.M. (1967). Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company

Suryabrata, S. (2002). Pengembangan alat ukur psikologis. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi Offset

Thissen, & Weiner, D. H. (2001). Test scoring. Marwah: Lawrence Erbaum Associated.Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A Law of comparative judgment. Psycho- logical Review, 34, 273-286

Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling.New York: Wiley.

Thurstone, L.L. (1927). Method of paired comparison for social values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 384-400

Van Zanten, V., Chiba, N., Arsmtrong, D., Barkuns, A. N., Thomson, A.B.R., Mann, V., Escobedo, S., Chakroborty,B. & Nevin, K. (2006). Validation of a 7 point global overall symptom scale to measure the severity of dyspepsia symptoms in clinical trials. Journal Compilation, 23, 521-529.

Widhiarso, W. (2009). Koefisien reliabilitas pada pengukuran kepribadian yang bersifat multi dimensi. Psikobuana, 1, 39-48.

Download

Share

COinS