Validity and Reliability of Handball Cognitive Assessment Instrument for Year 4: Use of Rasch Model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/jsspj.vol11.1.6.2022Keywords:
validity, reliability, cognitive, instrument, Rasch modelAbstract
The Handball Cognitive Assessment instrument for the Year 4 Physical Education (PE) subject is developed with the aim to assess the capabilities of the cognitive domain for the category of handball attack-play in regard to knowledge and understanding. In ensuring the instrument developed is dependable and suitable for use, this study was conducted to analyze and investigate empirical evidence on the validity and reliability of the instrument by using the Rasch analysis model. The Handball Cognitive Assessment instrument consists of twenty-five items that have been piloted by 51 Year 5 primary school students. The WINSTEPS programme was utilized to conduct the Rasch model analysis to obtain the validity and reliability of the instrument. The test of unidimensionality for the twenty-five items has a measured variance of 25.4% and all items exceeded the minimum of 20.0% as required by the Rasch model. The reliability index of the items is 0.83 and the reliability index of the respondents is 0.54. All the items have a positive correlation with PMC (PT-MEASURE CORR) and the item polarity shows that there is no discrepancy between the items for the constructs measured. The Outfit-MNSQ value shows a value that is less or equal to 1.5 logit which is defined as productive. However, for items 6, 8, and 14, although the Outfit-MNSQ value exceeds 1.5, it did not diverge too far when compared to the pilot study. These items were scrutinized again, and the validity is revalidated. The findings of this study prove that the Handball Cognitive Assessment is able to be utilized as an assessment instrument for the cognitive domain of PE specifically the Handball activity for Year 4 primary school students as it has proper validity and reliability that is accurate and can be implemented empirically.
Downloads
References
Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 103(3), 152–153. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010
Akın, A. (2022). The effectiveness of web-based Mathematics instruction (WBMI) on K-16 students’ mathematics learning: a meta-analytic research. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10931-x
Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213–230.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl Peter W Airasian, D. R., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). Taxonomy for_ Assessing a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Anderson-Krathwohl - A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing.pdf
Ayers, S. F. (2004). High school students’ physical education conceptual knowledge. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2004.10609160
Baghaei, P., & Aryadoust, V. (2015). Modeling Local Item Dependence Due to Common Test Format With a Multidimensional Rasch Model. International Journal of Testing, 15(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2014.941108
Balakrishnan, M., Rengasamy, S., & Aman, M. S. (2011). Teaching Game for Understanding in Physical Education : A Theoretical Framework and Implication. 1(2), 201–214.
Bhasah, & Bakar, A. (2008). Pengujian, pengukuran dan penilaian pendidikan. Prospecta Printers Sdn. Bhd.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, N. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: The Classification Of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814698
Boone, W. J., & Noltemeyer, A. (2017). Rasch analysis: A primer for school psychology researchers and practitioners. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1416898. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1416898
Cannon, H. M., & Feinstein, A. H. (2005). Bloom beyond Bloom: Using the revised taxonomy to develop experiential learning strategies. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Exercises, 32, 348–356.
Chang, K. E., Zhang, J., Huang, Y. S., Liu, T. C., & Sung, Y. T. (2020). Applying augmented reality in physical education on motor skills learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 685–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636073
Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2009). Dynamic physical education for secondary school students. San Francisco : Pearson/Benjamin Cummings, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/11162/65421
Fahruna, Y., & Fahmi, M. (2017). Validitas dan Reliabilitas Konstruk Pengukuran Perpustakaan Ideal Berbasis Pemakai dengan Pendekatan LIBQUAL. Jurnal Ekonomi Bisnis Dan Kewirausahaan, 6(2), 161. https://doi.org/10.26418/jebik.v6i2.22989
Ferris, T., & Aziz, S. (2005). A psychomotor skills extension to Bloom’s taxonomy of education objectives for engineering education. Exploring Innovation in Education and Research, 1–7.
Gengatharan, K., & Azli Rahmat. (2019). Keperluan modul pentaksiran pendidikan kesihatan untuk guru tahap satu dalam pelaksanaan pentaksiran bilik darjah. Jurnal Sains Sukan Dan Pendidikan Jasmani 8(2): 24-34, 8(2), 19–27.
Gurvitch, R., & Metzler, M. (2013). Aligning Learning Activities with Instructional Models. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(3), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2013.767719
Kamarudin, H., & Siti Hajar, A. A. (2004). Pedagogi asas pendidikan. : Kayazano Enterprise.
Linacre. (2009). Winsteps (Version 3.68) [Computer Software]. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com
Liza, S., Julismah, J., Azali, R., & Norkhalid, S. (2016). Learning Assessment Model for Invasion Category Games in Year 4 Physical Education. Journal of Sports Science and Physical Education, 5(1), 35–48.
Misbach, I. H., & Sumintono, B. (2014). Pengembangan dan validasi instrumen “persepsi siswa tehadap karakter moral guru” di Indonesia dengan model rasch. ,. PROCEEDING Seminar Nasional Psikometri, 148–162.
Mohan, D. (2018). Flipped Classroom, Flipped Teaching and Flipped Learning in the Foreign/Second Language Post–Secondary Classroom. Nouvelle Revue Synergies Canada, 11(11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.21083/nrsc.v0i11.4016
Nixon, J. E., & Locke, L. (1973). Research in teaching in physical education. In (in:) R.M.W. Travers, ed., Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1210–1242). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
Ramdani, R., Hanurawan, F., Ramli, M., Lasan, B. B., & Afdal, A. (2020). Development and Validation of Indonesian Academic Resilience Scale Using Rasch Models. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/IJI.2021.1417A
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi Pemodelan Rasch Pada Assessment Pendidikan. Trim Komunikata Publishing House.
Sumintono, Bambang, & Widhiarso, W. (2014). Aplikasi Model Rasch untuk Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial (edisi revisi).
Zhang, T., Chen, A., & Ennis, C. (2019). Elementary school students’ naïve conceptions and misconceptions about energy in physical education context. Sport, Education and Society, 24(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2017.1292234
