Validasi skala penilaian instrumen perencanaan karier menggunakan Andrich Threshold
Abstract
Abstract
Success in a career is synonymous with the welfare of an individual's life, which needs further handling from the counselor. In determining and preparing for a future career, counselors should use a valid and reliable inventory. However, inventory that is considered valid and reliable by the counselor still raises problems in administration, namely students are confused in setting the response point in the inventory. The purpose of this study is to find a clear and unambiguous rating scale to make it easier for students to set a response point in their inventory. The research sample uses area random sampling consisting of six groups of test subjects, namely: 1, n = 75; 2, n = 61; 3, n = 47; 4, n = 146; 5, n = 85; and 6, n = 63. Data in this study were 5-point Likert scale political data collected using career planning inventory. The research data were analyzed using the Rasch model by testing the rating scale analysis through Threshold analysis between ratings. The results showed the rating scale in the Threshold analysis, the rating scale changed to a four-point Likert scale with a choice of very inappropriate, not appropriate, appropriate, and very appropriate.
Keywords: Career Planning; Likert Scale; Ratting Scale; Threshold
Abstrak
Sukses dalam karier identik dengan kesejahteraan hidup individu, yang perlu penanganan lebih lanjut dari konselor. Dalam menentukan dan mempersiapkan karier dimasa depan, konselor mestinya menggunakan inventori yang valid dan reliabel. Namun, inventori yang dianggap valid dan reliabel oleh konselor masih memunculkan permasalahan dalam pengadministrasian, yaitu siswa bingung dalam menetapkan rating scale pada inventori. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menemukan skala penilaian yang jelas dan tidak ambigu untuk memudahkan siswa menetapkan rating scale pada inventori. Sampel penelitian menggunakan area random samplingyang terdiri dari enam kelompok subjek tes, yaitu: 1, n = 75; 2, n = 61; 3, n = 47; 4, n = 146; 5, n = 85; dan 6, n = 63. Data dalam penelitian ini berupa data politomi 5-point Likert scale yang dikumpulkan menggunakan career planning inventory. Data penelitian dianalisis menggunakan model Rasch dengan menguji rating scale analysis melalui analisis Threshold antar rating. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan rating scale pada analisis Threshold, rating scale berubah menjadi empat point Likert scale dengan pilihan sangat tidak sesuai, kurang sesuai, sesuai, dan sangat sesuai.
Kata kunci: Perencanaan Karier; Ratting Scale; Skala Likert; Threshold
Downloads
References
Afdal, A. (2015). Career Planning Inventory. Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang.
Afdal, A., Alizamar, A., Ifdil, I., Syahputra, Y., & Nurhastuti, N. (2019). Career Planning Differences Between Male. Specialusis Ugdymas / Special Education, 1(39), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.21277/se.v1i39.409
Alagumalai, S., Curtis, D. D., & Hungi, N. (2005). a Pplied Rasch Measurement : a Book of Exemplars Education in the Asia-Pacific Region : Issues , Concerns and Prospects. Netherlands: Springer.
Becker, A. (2018). Not to scale? An argument-based inquiry into the validity of an L2 writing rating scale. Assessing Writing, 37(2018), 1–12.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model, Fundamentals Measurement in the Human Science (3rd edition). New York: Routledge.
BPS. (2017). Keadaan Ketenagakerjaan Indonesia Agustus 2017. Indonesia: Badan Pusat Statistik.
Bullock, E. E., Andrews, L., Braud, J., & Reardon, R. C. (2009). Holland’s theory in an international context: Applicability of RIASEC structure and assessments. Career Planning & Adult Development Journal, 25(4), 29–58.
Engelhard Jr, G., & Wind, S. (2017). Invariant Measurement with Raters and Rating Scales: Rasch Models for Rater-Mediated Assessments. New York: Routledge Taylor dan Francis Group.
Fan, W., & Leong, F. L. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: Career development and intervention in Chinese contexts. Career Development Quarterly, 64(3), 192–202.
Fernandez, A., Stephan, Y., & Fouquereau, E. (2006). Assessing reasons for sports career termination: Development of the Athletes’ Retirement Decision Inventory (ARDI). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(2006), 407–421.
Fu, M., & Zhang, L. (2019). Developing and Validating the Career Personality Styles Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 52(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2018.1435193
Garland, R. (1991). The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2(1), 66–70.
Gasser, C. E., Larson, L. M., & Borgen, F. H. (2007). Concurrent validity of the 2005 Strong Interest Inventory: An examination of gender and major field of study. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(1), 23–43.
Guan, Y., Zhou, W., Ye, L., Jiang, P., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Perceived organizational career management and career adaptability as predictors of success and turnover intention among Chinese employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 230–237.
Haenggli, M., & Hirschi, A. (2020). Career adaptability and career success in the context of a broader career resources framework. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103414. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103414
Hirschi, A., Freund, P. A., & Herrmann, A. (2014). The Career Engagement Scale: Development and validation of a measure of proactive career behaviors. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 575–594.
Hofmans, Joeri, Theuns, P., & Mairesse, O. (2007). Impact of the Number of Response Categories on Linearity and Sensitivity of SelfAnchoring Scales: A Functional Measurement Approach. Methodology, 3(4), 160–169.
Iliescu, D., Ispas, D., Ilie, A., & Ion, A. (2013). The structure of vocational interests in Romania. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 294–302.
Jung, Y.-M., & Yoo, I.-Y. (2020). The effectiveness of a career efficacy enhancement program for KOREAN nursing students: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 89, 104423.
Linacre, J. M. (2011). A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS Ministeps Rasch-Model Computer Programs. https://doi.org/ISBN 0-941938-03-4
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsinun, R., Erwinda, L., & Syahputra, Y. (2020). Homosexual and Transgender Tendencies in Terms of Gender: A Rasch Perspective. In International Conference on Progressive Education (ICOPE 2019) Atlantis Press, 422, 358–361.
Mazahreh, L. G., Stoltz, K. B., & Wolff, L. A. (2017). Development Validation of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Validation of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ABSTRACT. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 1756(December). https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1358058
Morgan, B., & de Bruin, G. P. (2017). Structural validity of Holland’s circumplex model of vocational personality types in Africa. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 1–17.
Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., & Lu?dtke, O. (2010). The structure of vocational interests in Germany: Different methodologies, different conclusions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 153–169.
Pan, M. (2016). Nonverbal Delivery in Speaking Assessment From an Argument to a Rating Scale Formulation and Validation. China: Springer.
Park, I.-J., Han, K., & Ryu, K. (2019). Development and Validation of a Career Future Time Perspective Scale. Journal of Career Development, 1–14.
Park, I. J., & Jung, H. (2015). Relationships among future time perspective, career and organizational commitment, occupational self-efficacy, and turnover intention. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43, 1547–1561.
Pignault, A., & Houssemand, C. (2013). Work Context and Career Development Construction of a Work Context Inventory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82(2013), 169 – 175.
Porfeli, E. J., & Savickas, M. . (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale-USA Form: Psychometric properties and relation to vocational identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 748–753.
Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 247–259.
Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In R. W. Lent, & S. D. Brown (Eds.). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 147–183). (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2011). Revision of the Career Maturity Inventory: The Adaptability Form. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 355–374.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior of Vocational, 80, 661–673.
Sorkkila, M., Ryba, T. V., Aunola, K., Selänne, H., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). Sport burnout inventory–Dual career form for student-athletes: Assessing validity and reliability in a Finnish sample of adolescent athletes. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 10(January), 1–9.
Stambulova, N. (2010). Counseling athletes in career transitions: The five-step career planning strategy. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2010.528829
Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2006). Classroom assessment for student learning ?Doing it right, using it well. Portland. OR: Educational Testing Service.
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi Pemodelan Rasch pada Assessment Pendidikan. Bandung: Trim Komunikata.
Syahputra, Y., Sandjaja, S. S., Afdal, A., & Ardi, Z. (2019). Development aninventory of homosexuality and transgender exposure (IHTE): A Rasch analysis. Konselor, 8(4), 120–133.
Tierney, R., & Simon, M. (2004). What’s still wrong with rubrics: focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(2), 1–10.
Tsai, C. S., Hsu, H., & Hsu, Y. (2017). Tourism and Hospitality College Students ’ Career Anxiety : Scale Development and Validation Tourism and Hospitality College Students ’ Career Anxiety : Scale Development. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 0(0), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2017.1382365
Vagle, N. . (2014). Design in Five: Essential Phases to Create Engaging Assessment Practice. Citizen: Solution Tree Press.
Wegemer, C. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2019). Gendered STEM career choices: Altruistic values, beliefs, and identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110(2019), 28–42.
Xu, H., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2015). Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale: Construction and initial validations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.01.006
Yu, H., & Zheng, X. (2013). The impact of employee career adaptability: Multilevel analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45, 680–693.
Zacher, H. (2014). Career adaptability predicts subjective career success above and beyond personality traits and core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 21–30.
The author who will publish the manuscript at Persona: Jurnal Psikologi Indonesia, agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories, pre-prints sites or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater dissemination of published work
