Analisis Rasch Model Indonesia the International Personality Item Pool-Big Five Factor Markers (IPIP-BFM-50)
Abstract
Abstract
Various studies have been conducted to determine human personality, then there are various theories and personality scales. IPIP-BFM-50 is open source and has been used around the world. The aims of this research is to validate IPIP-BFM-50 with rasch model. The sample used was 359 students from University of Surabaya, with an age range 17-23 years. This research used simple random sampling. The outfit-infit statistic results vary from 0.5-1.5 (except C-28), person-item reliability is above 0.7, the passable dimesionality measure.. There are several items that indicate bias based on DIF measurement: EM-44, EM-14, EM-29, EM-9, E-6, E41, C-38, A-32, and I-30. There are some items on the dimensions of emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and intellect with less varied levels of DIFficulty. Researche proposed choice to rework this instrument in the terms for fixed its item bias and wider its variability (DIFfuculties hierarchy). This studies also implies on similar studies to use both CTT and rasch model simultaneously for gain richer psychometrics information.
Keywords: IPIP-BFM-50; Personality; Rasch Model
Abstrak
Berbagai penelitian telah dilakukan untuk mengetahui kepribadian manusia, yang kemudian muncul berbagai teori dan alat ukur kepribadian. IPIP-BFM-50 merupakan salah satu alat ukur kepribadian open source dan telah banyak digunakan di seluruh dunia. Penelitian ini memiliki tujuan melengkapi studi validasi IPIP BFM-50 sebelumnya, dengan menggunakan rasch model . Sampel yang digunakan yaitu 359 mahasiswa Universitas Surabaya, dengan usia 17-23 tahun. Pengambilan sampel dilakukan dengan teknik simple random sampling. Diperoleh hasil outfit-infit seluruh butir yang bervariasi pada 0.5 – 1.5 (kecuali C-28), reliabilitas person-item pada semua dimensi dari alat ukur ini diatas 0.7, hasil uji dimensionalitas yang cukup memuaskan. Terdapat beberapa butir yang terindikasi bias yaitu butir EM-44, EM-14, EM-29, EM-9, E-6, E41, C-38, A-32, dan I-30. Beberapa butir pada dimensi emotional stability, extraversion, dan conscientiousness, agreeableness, dan intellect memiliki tingkat kesulitannya kurang bervariasi. Peneliti menyarankan untuk melakukan revisi dari instrumen ini apabila berkeinginan untuk memperbaiki butir yang diindikasi mengalami bias dan memperluas variasi tingkat kesulitan butir. Studi ini juga berimplimkasi pada studi serupa berikutnya terkait validasi dan adaptasi untuk menggunakan kedua paradigma CTT dan rasch model sehingga mendapatkan informasi psikometris yang lebih banyak dan sempurna.
Kata kunci: IPIP-BFM-50; Kepribadian; Rasch Model
Downloads
References
Acharya, A., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and How of it? INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SPECIALITIES, 4, 330-333. https://doi.org/10.7713/ijms.2013.0032
Ahktar, H., & Azwar, S. (2019). Indonesian Adaptation and Psychometric Properties Evaluation of the Big Five Personality Inventory: IPIP-BFM-50. Jurnal Psikologi, 32-44. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.33571
Baghaei, P. (2012). The application of multidimensional rasch models in large scale assessment and validation: An empirical example. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10(1), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v10i26.149
Bond, T. G., & Fox, M. C. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences Third Edition. New York: Routledge.
Brandt, S., Moulton, M., & Duckor, B. (2015). Advances in Rasch modeling:New applications and directions. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling Volume 57, 338-341.
Chen, W. H., Lenderking, W., Jin, Y., Wyrwich, K. W., Gelhorn, H., & Revicki, D. A. (2014). Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5
Costa, JR, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cupani, M., & Lorenza-Seva, U. (2016). The development of an alternative IPIP inventory measuring the Big-Five factor markers in an Argentine sample. Persnonality and Individual Differences, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.051
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-Yet-Effective Measures of the Big Five . Psychological Assesment, 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldbergs IPIP Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences , 317-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011
Hagquist, C., Bruce, M., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2009). Using the Rasch model in nursing research: An introduction and illustrative example. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 380-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.007
Ingram, P. B., Boan-Lenzo, C., & Vuyk, M. A. (2013). Openness/Intellect in a 50-item ipip instrument. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-4.omsf
Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality , 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 329-258. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Linacre, John. (1994). Sample Size and Item Calibration Stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 7. 328.
Mlaci?c, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). An Analysis of a Cross-Cultural Personality Inventory: The IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers in Croatia. Journal of Personality Assesment, 168-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701267993
Novikova, I. A. (2013). Big 5 (The FIve-Factor Model and The Five-Factor Theory). Dalam K. D. Keith, The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology. New Jersey: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
Olivares-Tirado, P., Leyton, G., & Salazar, E. (2013). Personality factors and self-perceived health in Chi-lean elderly population. Health, Vol.5 No.12A.
Olivera, J. (2017). Psychometric Properties of the Portuguese Version of the Mini-IPIP five-Factor Model Personality Scale. Current Psychology, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9625-5
Penfield, R. D. (2013). DIFAS 5.0 Differential item functioning analysis system User’s Manual
Sari, U. P. (2016). Relationship between personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability) with student's environmental moral behavior. IJEEM.
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2009). Theories of Personality, Ninth Edition. Wadsworth: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Smith, Adam & Rush, Robert & Fallowfield, Lesley & Velikova, Galina & Sharpe, Michael. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size consideration for polytomous data. BMC medical research methodology. 8. 33. 10.1186/1471-2288-8-33.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowinski, T. (2014). The polish adaptation of the ipip-bfm-50 questionnaire for measuring five personality traits in the lexical approach. ROCZNIKI PSYCHOLOGICZNE/ANNALS OF PSYCHOLOGY, 347-336.
Sumintono, B. (2014). Model Rasch untuk Penelitian Sosial Kuantitatif. Trim Komunikata Publishing House.
Tresnawati, F. R. (2016). Hubungan antara the big five personality traits dengan fear of missing out about social media pada mahasiswa. Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi .
Weiten, W. (2013). Psychology Themes and Variations. Las Vegas: University of Nevada.
Widhiastuti, H. (2014). Big five personality sebagai prediktor kreativitas dalam meningkatkan kinerja anggota dewan. Jurnal Psikologi, 115-133. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.6962
Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., & Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP Big-Five factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between Internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and Individual Differences , 649-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.009
Copyright (c) 2022 Roy Surya, Stevanny Angela, Timothy Ryan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
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