SHOULD LIKERT DATA BE TRANSFORMED USING SUMMATED RATING SCALE? A CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS STUDY ON THE CONTINUOUS LEARNING

Islamiani Safitri

Abstract


Continuous Learning competence can be measured through self-assessment to minimize interview failure. The problem arises when the Continuous Learning instrument is developed using a Likert Scale. Can the data from the distribution of the instrument be used directly, or must it be converted using the summated rating scale approach? This study aims to compare the results of instrument analysis through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) based on direct data and conversion data. The method used is descriptive quantitative, involving 281 undergraduate students in Indonesia. Instrument analysis includes estimating reliability, convergent validity, and construct validity through CFA. The study's results show that the reliability and convergent validity of the data converted using the summated rating scale are higher than those of the direct data. However, the direct data produces a better measurement model fit test value compared to the converted data. However, the difference in value between the two types of data is very small and does not have any meaningful difference. Therefore, the data from the instrument can be directly analyzed without converting to the summated rating scale. This study provides insights to researchers and academics in developing a continuous learning instrument. Additionally, it offers insight into how processing Likert data on the Continuous Learning instrument is very straightforward and does not require data conversion through a summated rating scale.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Alkharusi, H. (2023). A descriptive analysis and interpretation of data from Likert scales in educational and psychological research. Indian Journal of Psychology and Education, 12(2), 13–16.

Amora, J. T. (2021). Convergent validity assessment in PLS-SEM: A loadings-driven approach. Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2(1), 1–6.

Anis, L., Perez, G., Benzies, K. M., Ewashen, C., Hart, M., & Letourneau, N. (2020). Convergent Validity of Three Measures of Reflective Function: Parent Development Interview, Parental Reflective Function Questionnaire, and Reflective Function Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(December), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574719

Azwar, S. (2012). Reliabilitas dan Validitas (4th ed.). Pustaka Belajar.

Azwar, S. (2022). Penyusunan Skala Psikologi. Pustaka Pelajar.

Cheng, C., Lay, K., Hsu, Y., & Tsai, Y. (2021). Can Likert scales predict choices ? Testing the unity between the Likert scale and comparative judgment on measuring attribution. Methods in Psychology, 5(October), 100081. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100081

Delacre, M., Lakens, D., & Leys, C. (2021). Correction : Why Psychologists Should by Default Use Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.661

Ismail, R., Retnawati, H., & Setiawati, F. A. (2021). Optimal Scale Points for Reliable Measurements : Exploring the Impact of Scale Point Variation. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi Dan Pendidikan Indonesia, 13(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v13i1.34173

Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/bjast/2015/14975

Kam, C. C. S. (2020). Expanded format shows better response consistency than Likert-scale format in the measurement of optimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 152(September), 109606. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109606

Kampen, J. K. (2019). Reflections on and test of the metrological properties of summated rating , Likert , and other scales based on sums of ordinal variables. Measurement, 137(February), 428–434. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j

Kislyonkova, A., & Lebedeva, M. (2022). Ordering motivation and Likert scale ratings : When a numeric scale is not necessarily better. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, September 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942593

Mlambo, M., Silén, C., & Mcgrath, C. (2021). Lifelong learning and nurses’ continuing professional development, a meta-synthesis of the literature. BMC Nursing, 20(April), 1–13. https://doi.org/Mlambo et ahttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00579-2

Mumu, J., Tanujaya, B., Charitas, R., & Prahmana, I. (2022). Likert Scale in Social Sciences Research: Problems and Difficulties. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 16(4), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.51709/19951272/Winter2022/7

Retnawati, H. (2017). Reliabilitas Instrumen PenelitianReliabilitas. IAIN Batusangkar.

Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2015). Continuous Learning in Organizations: Individual, Group, and, Organizational Perspectives. Psyychology Press.

Simamora, B. (2022). Skala Likert, Bias Penggunaan dan Jalan Keluarnya. Jurnal Manajemen, 12(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46806/jman.v12i1.978

Toquero, C. M. (2020). Challenges and Opportunities for Higher Education amid the COVID-19 Pandemic : The Philippine Context. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7947




DOI: https://doi.org/10.36987/jes.v11i3.6412

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Islamiani Safitri

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Lisensi Creative Commons
Jurnal Eduscience (JES) by LPPM Universitas Labuhanbatu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC - SA 4.0)