•  
  •  
 

Keywords

construct validity; evaluation; vocational teacher education institution

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendapatkan bukti validitas konstrak dari instrumen yang digunakan untuk kegiatan evaluasi outcome dari lembaga pendidikan guru vokasional. Instrumen ini terdiri atas 3 jenis instrumen. Teknik analisis data yang digunakan adalah confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Kriteria yang digunakan untuk melihat kecocokan model adalah: p-value, normed Chi-square (X2/df), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), RMR (Root Mean-square Residual), GFI (Goodness-of-Fit Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), dan CFI (Comparative Fit Index). Bukti validitas instrumen dapat dilihat pada besarnya faktor loading dan t-value. Jika loading factor lebih besar dari 0,3 dengan t-valuelebih besar dari 1,96 maka butir pernyataan dapat dikategorikan valid. Berdasarkan hasil analisis diperoleh hasil: (1) pada instrumen I terdapat 26 butir yang dinyatakan valid; (2) pada instrumen II terdapat 23 butir yang dinyatakan valid; dan (3) pada instrumen III terdapat 18 butir yang dinyatakan valid.

Kata kunci: validitas konstrak, evaluasi, lembaga pendidikan guru vokasional

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF OUTCOME EVALUATION INSTRUMENT IN VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

Abstract

This research aims to get the construct validity evidence of the outcome evaluation instrument of vocational teacher education institution. The instrument consists of 3 kinds of instruments. The analysis technique that is used to test the construct validity is confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The criteria used to determine the goodness of fit were: p-value, normed Chi-square (X2/df), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), RMR (Root Mean-square Residual), GFI (Goodness-of-Fit Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and CFI (Comparative Fit Index). The evidence of the construct validity was based on the standardized loading factor and t-value. If the loading factor > 0.3 with t-value > 1.96, the item is valid. Based on the analysis, the research results are: (1) 26 item of the instrument I are categorized valid; (2) 23 items of instrument II are categorized valid; and (3) 18 items of instrument III are categorized valid. Keywords: construct validity, evaluation, vocational teacher education institution

First Page

221

Last Page

233

Issue

2

Volume

20

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v20i2.8448

References

Allen, T., & Tinkew, J.B. (2008). Outcome evaluations: A guide for out-of-school time practitioners: Part 4 in a series on practical evaluation methods. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Child_Trends-2008_01_07_OutcomeEvaluation.pdf

Astin, A.W.(1993). Assessment for excellence. The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: The Oryx Press.

Azwar, S. (2014). Reliabilitas dan validitas. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.136-162

Cronbach, L. J. & Meel, P. E. (1995): Construct validity in psychological test, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302

Direktorat Tenaga Kependidikan. (2008). Penilaian kinerja guru. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Fernandes, H. J. X. (1984). Evaluation of educational programs. Jakarta: National Education Evaluation and Curriculum Development.

Hair, Jr. J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Person Prentice Hall.

Issac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. (2nd ed.). California: Edits Publisher.

Lunenburg, F. C. & Ornstein, A. C. (2000). Educational administration: concept and practices. (3th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Mardapi, D. (2005). Pengembangan instrumen penelitian pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Pascasarjana UNY.

Myers, P. & Barner, J. (2005). Measuring Outcomes: guidance on outcome evaluation for Sure Start Local Programmes. NESS. Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic Approach. (7th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Sihvonen, R. J. (1999). A framework for Evaluating Educational Outcome in Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Education.

Supriadi, D. (2003). Guru di Indonesia: pendidikan, pelatihan dan perjuangan sejak zaman colonial hingga era reformasi. Ja-karta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasio-nal, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, Direktorat Tenaga Kependidikan.

Suranto, S., Muhyadi, M., & Mardapi, D. (2014). Pengembangan instrumen evaluasi uji kompetensi keahlian (UKK) administrasi perkantoran di SMK. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 18(1), 98-114. Retrieved from http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jpep/article/view/2127

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Introduction to evaluation. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/interval.php

Wijayanto, S. H. (2008). Structural Equation modeling dengan lisrel 8.8: konsep dan tutorial. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Wijayati, P., Suyata, S., & Sumarno, S. (2013). Model evaluasi pembelajaran berbasis kaizen di sekolah menengah atas. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 17(2), 318-332. Retrieved from http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jpep/article/view/1703

World Health Organization. (2000). Outcome evaluations: evaluation of psychoactive substance use disorder treatment.

Download

Share

COinS