A. Measurement Scales
1. Unidimensional
The analysis of unidimensionality determines how many attributes or dimensions are measured by the instrument. This analysis used Output Table 2 to observe the Raw variance explained by measures and Unexplained variance in the 1st to fifth contrast. The unidimensionality measurement could be proven if the Raw variance explained by measures ≥ 20% with a note that the general criteria for interpretation are in an acceptable category if the variance is around 20-40%, good category if it is 40-60%, excellent if it is above 60%, and if Unexplained variance in first to fifth contrast of residuals is < 15% each [34]. The unidimensional are presented in table 2 as follows.
Table 2 Unidimensional
Table of Standardized Residual Variance in Eigenvalue Units
|
|
Eigenvalue
|
Observed
|
|
Expected
|
Total raw variance in observations
|
36.8097
|
100.0%
|
|
100.0%
|
Raw variance explained by measures
|
11.8097
|
32.1%
|
|
33.3%
|
Raw variance explained by persons
|
2.1236
|
5.8%
|
|
6.0%
|
Raw variance explained by items
|
9.6860
|
26.3%
|
|
27.3%
|
Raw unexplained variance (total)
|
25.0000
|
67.9%
|
100.0%
|
66.7%
|
Unexplained variance in 1st contrast
|
4.4177
|
12.0%
|
17.7%
|
|
Unexplained variance in 2st contrast
|
3.5250
|
9.6
|
14.1%
|
|
Unexplained variance in 3st contrast
|
2.6154
|
7.1%
|
10.5%
|
|
Unexplained variance in 4th contrast
|
1.8619
|
5.1%
|
7.4%
|
|
Unexplained variance in 5th contrast
|
1.5082
|
4.1%
|
6.0%
|
|
The results of data analysis showed that the Raw variance explained by measures is 32.1%, which means it is in the acceptable category. Meanwhile, the Unexplained variance in the 1st to fifth contrast of residuals is 12.0%; 9.6%; 7.1%; 5.1%; and 4.1%. It appears that each variance is less than 15%. Therefore, the constructed instrument used measured one variable, career self-awareness.
2. Instrument Analysis
The information is presented in the output Table 3 Summary Statistics is used in the instrument analysis. In detail, the analysis of the instrument is given in Table 3.
Table 3 Summary Statistics
Summary Person
|
|
Total
|
Model
|
Infit
|
Outfit
|
|
Score
|
Count
|
Measure
|
Standard error
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Mean
|
67.0
|
25.0
|
.64
|
.20
|
1.02
|
-.06
|
1.00
|
-.09
|
Standard deviation
|
1.4
|
.0
|
.06
|
.00
|
.06
|
.25
|
.06
|
.22
|
Maximum
|
83.0
|
25.0
|
1.35
|
.24
|
2.09
|
3.26
|
2.06
|
3.26
|
Minimum
|
44.0
|
25.0
|
-.20
|
.18
|
.32
|
-3.64
|
.34
|
-3.19
|
Real root-mean-square deviation
|
.22
|
True Standard deviation
|
.28
|
Separation
|
1.30
|
Person Reliability
|
.63
|
Model root-mean-square deviation
|
.20
|
True Standard deviation
|
.30
|
Separation
|
1.48
|
Person Reliability
|
.69
|
S.E. of Person Mean = .06
|
Person raw score-to-measure correlation = .92
Cronbach Alpha (KR-20) person raw score “test” test reliability = .89
SEM = 4.86
Reliability = .89
|
Summary Item
|
|
Total
|
Model
|
Infit
|
Outfit
|
|
Score
|
Count
|
Measure
|
Standard error
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Mean
|
144.5
|
50.0
|
.00
|
.16
|
1.01
|
.03
|
1.00
|
.01
|
Standard deviation
|
5.1
|
.0
|
.12
|
.01
|
.05
|
.26
|
.05
|
.26
|
Maximum
|
189.0
|
50.0
|
.92
|
.29
|
1.2
|
2.07
|
1.45
|
2.20
|
Minimum
|
101.0
|
50.0
|
-1.51
|
.14
|
.59
|
-2.50
|
.57
|
-2.21
|
Real root-mean-square deviation
|
.17
|
True Standard deviation
|
.58
|
Separation
|
3.38
|
Item Reliability
|
.92
|
Model root-mean-square deviation
|
.16
|
True Standard deviation
|
.58
|
Separation
|
3.56
|
Item Reliability
|
.93
|
S.E. of Item Mean = .12
|
Item raw score-to-measure correlation = -.98
|
Person measure showed the average score of all participants working on each data instrument item for disclosing career self-awareness. The average person value, greater than the average item (where the average item is 0.00 logit), indicates that the participants’ ability is generally greater than the difficulty level of each item in the instrument.
The Cronbach Alpha value, which represents the interaction between the person and the items as a whole, is 0.89, which is in the very good category. Based on the criteria presented by Sumintono & Widhiarso, the person reliability value is 0.63, which is in the low category, while the item reliability is 0.92, which is considered very good [34].
Other data in Table 3 that could be used are INFIT MNSQ and OUTFIT MNSQ in both the Person and Item tables. Based on the Person Table, it is known that the average Infit Mean-square and Outfit Mean-square values are 1.02 and 1.00, respectively. Meanwhile, based on the Item table, it is known that the average Infit Mean-square and Outfit Mean-square values are 1.01 and 1.00, respectively. If it is closer to number 1, the criterion is better because the ideal value is 1 [31]. Therefore, the average person and item are close to the ideal criteria.
Meanwhile, related to Infit Z-standard and Outfit Z-standard, the average values for the person are -0.06 and -0.09, respectively. Meanwhile, each item's Infit Z-standard and Outfit Z-standard values are 0.03 and 0.01. The ideal Z-standard value is 0; the closer to 0, the better [34]. Thus, the quality of the person and item is good.
From the output of Table 3, it is known that the person separation is 1.30, and for items is 3.38. The greater the separation value, the better the quality of the person and instrument. The separation value is calculated more accurately through the formula: H={(4 x separation) + 1}/3. Therefore, the person separation value is 2.07, rounded down to 2, while the item separation is 4.84, rounded up to 5. This result means that research participants have a variety of abilities that could be categorized into two groups. Meanwhile, the difficulty level items were spread into five groups starting from the easiest to the most difficult.
B. Participants
Referring to Output Figure 1. Wright Map Analysis, it is known that the Wright Map Analysis Career Self-Awareness on victims of violence spreads in the range of 0 to 3 logit.
Their Career Self-Awareness management positions are mostly between 0SD and +1SD. Nevertheless, some of them have abilities that are outliers, which means extremely high. The logit average of the Wright Map Analysis Career Self-Awareness on victims of violence is +1.37, above 0.00, the average logit item, representing the average of respondents above the average standard difficulty level item.
Meanwhile, the difficulty level item map spreads from -1 to 1 logit. The position of the difficulty level of 24 items is between 0SD and +1SD, while one item, number 1, is below -1SD. Therefore, item number 1 has an outlier of item difficulty level. The average standard item difficulty level is below the level of the respondents' ability. Thus, the Career Self-Awareness instrument items were easily approved by the respondents.
C. Items Analysis
The analysis of this item includes the difficulty level item (item measure), the suitability level item (item fit), and the item bias detection.
1. Difficulty Level Item
To find out the difficulty level of the items, it could be analyzed from Table 1 Item Measure Order. From the table, it is known that the SD value is 0.61. If the SD value is combined with the average logit value, the item difficulty level could be grouped into the very difficult category (greater +1 SD), the difficult category (0.0 logit + 1 SD), the easy category (0.0 logit - 1 SD), and very easy category (less than -1 SD). Thus, the value limit for the very difficult category is more than 0.61, the difficult category is 0.00 to 0.61, the easy category is -0.61 to less than 0.00, and the very easy category is less than -0.61. The following is Table 4, relating the difficulty level item in detail.
Table 4 Difficulty Level Item
Entry Number
|
Total Score
|
Total Count
|
Measure
|
Infit
|
Outfit
|
Point Measure correlation
|
Exact
|
Match
|
Item
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Correlation
|
Expectation
|
Observed%
|
Expected%
|
2
|
101
|
50
|
.92
|
1.21
|
1.15
|
1.23
|
1.24
|
.63
|
.66
|
26.2
|
31.6
|
ITEM2
|
16
|
103
|
50
|
.88
|
1.41
|
2.07
|
1.45
|
2.20
|
.58
|
.65
|
21.4
|
31.6
|
ITEM16
|
15
|
105
|
50
|
.84
|
.92
|
-.38
|
.92
|
-.39
|
.66
|
.65
|
31.0
|
31.7
|
ITEM15
|
19
|
109
|
50
|
.77
|
.66
|
-2.11
|
.67
|
-2.03
|
.70
|
.63
|
40.5
|
31.8
|
ITEM19
|
21
|
109
|
50
|
.77
|
.77
|
-1.37
|
.76
|
-1.39
|
.68
|
.63
|
28.6
|
31.8
|
ITEM21
|
12
|
128
|
50
|
.41
|
1.21
|
1.14
|
1.22
|
1.20
|
.50
|
.55
|
31.0
|
31.8
|
ITEM12
|
18
|
128
|
50
|
.41
|
1.11
|
.63
|
1.11
|
.65
|
.53
|
.55
|
38.1
|
31.8
|
ITEM18
|
8
|
132
|
50
|
.33
|
1.26
|
1.37
|
1.31
|
1.60
|
.48
|
.53
|
28.6
|
31.7
|
ITEM8
|
20
|
135
|
50
|
.28
|
1.17
|
.92
|
1.14
|
.80
|
.50
|
.52
|
19.0
|
31.5
|
ITEM20
|
24
|
138
|
50
|
.22
|
1.05
|
.31
|
1.05
|
.33
|
.50
|
.50
|
19.0
|
31.4
|
ITEM24
|
6
|
142
|
50
|
.13
|
.59
|
-2.50
|
.62
|
-2.21
|
.58
|
.49
|
42.9
|
31.3
|
ITEM6
|
10
|
143
|
50
|
.11
|
1.23
|
1.18
|
1.14
|
.75
|
.45
|
.48
|
31.0
|
31.1
|
ITEM10
|
11
|
145
|
50
|
.07
|
1.42
|
1.97
|
1.41
|
1.90
|
.42
|
.47
|
28.6
|
31.1
|
ITEM11
|
13
|
149
|
50
|
-.02
|
.61
|
-2.26
|
.62
|
-2.07
|
.54
|
.46
|
31.0
|
31.0
|
ITEM13
|
14
|
150
|
50
|
-.04
|
.75
|
-1.29
|
.76
|
-1.20
|
.50
|
.45
|
35.7
|
30.9
|
ITEM14
|
23
|
157
|
50
|
-.20
|
.98
|
-.05
|
1.02
|
.17
|
.42
|
.42
|
19.0
|
31.4
|
ITEM23
|
22
|
158
|
50
|
-.23
|
1.28
|
1.28
|
1.27
|
1.18
|
.39
|
.41
|
21.4
|
31.3
|
ITEM22
|
5
|
162
|
50
|
-.33
|
.84
|
-.71
|
.84
|
-.63
|
.43
|
.39
|
40.5
|
33.9
|
ITEM5
|
25
|
163
|
50
|
-.36
|
1.27
|
1.16
|
1.16
|
.72
|
.38
|
.39
|
28.6
|
35.6
|
ITEM25
|
3
|
170
|
50
|
-.57
|
.65
|
-1.53
|
.57
|
-1.85
|
.44
|
.35
|
52.4
|
39.3
|
ITEM3
|
7
|
171
|
50
|
-.60
|
1.11
|
.50
|
1.10
|
.45
|
.33
|
.35
|
40.5
|
39.3
|
ITEM7
|
9
|
172
|
50
|
-.64
|
.83
|
-.60
|
.81
|
-.68
|
.38
|
.34
|
45.2
|
42.0
|
ITEM9
|
4
|
177
|
50
|
-.82
|
1.15
|
.60
|
1.16
|
.62
|
.30
|
.31
|
45.2
|
47.2
|
ITEM4
|
17
|
177
|
50
|
-.82
|
.82
|
-.61
|
.75
|
-.85
|
.35
|
.31
|
57.1
|
47.2
|
ITEM17
|
1
|
189
|
50
|
-1.51
|
.94
|
-.03
|
.82
|
-.33
|
.25
|
.22
|
76.2
|
77.8
|
ITEM1
|
Mean
|
144.5
|
50.0
|
.00
|
1.01
|
.03
|
1.00
|
.01
|
|
35.1
|
35.9
|
|
P.SD
|
25.1
|
.0
|
.61
|
.25
|
1.30
|
.25
|
1.27
|
13.1
|
9.8
|
By looking at the logit value of each item in Table 4 difficulty level item, sequentially based on the level of difficulty (from the most difficult item to the easiest), it is known that five items fall into the very difficult category, namely item numbers 2, 16, 15, 19, and 21. The difficult category has eight items numbered 12, 18, 8, 20, 24, 6, 10, and 11. The easy category has eight items; they are 13, 14, 23, 22, 5, 25, 3, and 7. At the same time, the very easy category has four items: numbers 9, 4, 17, and 1.
2. Suitability Level Item
The suitability level item with the model (item fit) explained whether the item functions normally in taking measurements so there would be no misconceptions about the individual regarding the items. Suitability level items could be examined based on the data in Table 5: Item Fit Order, namely the Outfit Mean-square (MNSQ), Outfit Z-standard (ZSTD), and point measure correlation (PT MEASURE CORR) columns. The criteria for checking item fit or item misfit (outlier or misfit) according to Boone, Staver, & Yale (2014) are as follows: 1) The Outfit Mean-square value is greater than 0.5 and less than 1.5. The closer to 1, the better; 2) The Outfit Z-standard value is greater than -2.0 and less than +2.0, the closer to 0, the better; and 3) Point measure correlation values are more than 0.4 and less than 0.85. An item can be considered fit if it meets at least 2 of the three criteria [34]. Table 5 shows the details.
Table 5 Suitability Level Item
Entry Number
|
Total Score
|
Total Count
|
Measure
|
Infit
|
Outfit
|
Point measure correlation
|
Exact
|
Match
|
Item
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Mean-square
|
Zstandard
|
Correlation
|
Expanded values
|
Observed, %
|
Expented, %
|
16
|
103
|
50
|
.88
|
1.41
|
2.07
|
1.45
|
2.20
|
.58
|
.65
|
21.4
|
31.6
|
Item16
|
11
|
145
|
50
|
.07
|
1.42
|
1.97
|
1.41
|
1.90
|
.42
|
.47
|
28.6
|
31.1
|
Item11
|
8
|
132
|
50
|
.33
|
1.26
|
1.37
|
1.31
|
1.60
|
.48
|
.53
|
28.6
|
31.7
|
Item8
|
22
|
158
|
50
|
-.23
|
1.28
|
1.28
|
1.27
|
1.18
|
.39
|
.41
|
21.4
|
31.3
|
Item22
|
25
|
163
|
50
|
-.36
|
1.27
|
1.16
|
1.16
|
.72
|
.38
|
.39
|
28.6
|
35.6
|
Item25
|
2
|
101
|
50
|
.92
|
1.21
|
1.15
|
1.23
|
1.24
|
.63
|
.66
|
26.2
|
31.6
|
Item2
|
10
|
143
|
50
|
.11
|
1.23
|
1.18
|
1.14
|
.75
|
.45
|
.48
|
31.0
|
31.1
|
Item10
|
12
|
128
|
50
|
.41
|
1.21
|
1.14
|
1.22
|
1.20
|
.50
|
.55
|
31.0
|
31.8
|
Item12
|
20
|
135
|
50
|
.28
|
1.17
|
.92
|
1.14
|
.80
|
.50
|
.52
|
19.0
|
31.5
|
Item20
|
4
|
177
|
50
|
-.82
|
1.15
|
.60
|
1.16
|
.62
|
.30
|
.31
|
45.2
|
47.2
|
Item4
|
7
|
171
|
50
|
-.60
|
1.11
|
.50
|
1.10
|
.45
|
.33
|
.35
|
40.5
|
39.3
|
Item7
|
18
|
128
|
50
|
.41
|
1.11
|
.63
|
1.11
|
.65
|
.53
|
.55
|
38.1
|
31.8
|
Item18
|
24
|
138
|
50
|
.22
|
1.05
|
.31
|
1.05
|
.33
|
.50
|
.50
|
19.0
|
31.4
|
Item24
|
23
|
157
|
50
|
-.20
|
.98
|
-.05
|
1.02
|
.17
|
.42
|
.42
|
19.0
|
31.4
|
Item23
|
1
|
189
|
50
|
-1.51
|
.94
|
-.03
|
.82
|
-.33
|
.25
|
.22
|
76.2
|
77.8
|
Item1
|
15
|
105
|
50
|
.84
|
.92
|
-.38
|
.92
|
-.39
|
.66
|
.65
|
31.0
|
31.7
|
Item15
|
5
|
162
|
50
|
-.33
|
.84
|
-.71
|
.84
|
-.63
|
.43
|
.39
|
40.5
|
33.9
|
Item5
|
9
|
172
|
50
|
-.64
|
.83
|
-.60
|
.81
|
-.68
|
.38
|
.34
|
45.2
|
42.0
|
Item9
|
17
|
177
|
50
|
-.82
|
.82
|
-.61
|
.75
|
-.85
|
.35
|
.31
|
57.1
|
47.2
|
Item17
|
21
|
109
|
50
|
.77
|
.77
|
-1.37
|
.76
|
-1.39
|
.68
|
.63
|
28.6
|
31.8
|
Item21
|
14
|
150
|
50
|
-.04
|
.75
|
-1.29
|
.76
|
-1.20
|
.50
|
45
|
35.7
|
30.9
|
Item14
|
19
|
109
|
50
|
.77
|
.66
|
-2.11
|
.67
|
-2.03
|
.70
|
.63
|
40.5
|
31.8
|
Item19
|
3
|
170
|
50
|
-.57
|
.65
|
-1.53
|
.57
|
-1.85
|
.44
|
.35
|
52.4
|
39.3
|
Item3
|
6
|
142
|
50
|
.13
|
.59
|
-2.50
|
.62
|
-2.21
|
.58
|
.49
|
42.9
|
31.3
|
Item6
|
13
|
149
|
50
|
-.02
|
.61
|
-2.26
|
.62
|
-2.07
|
.54
|
.46
|
31.0
|
31.0
|
Item13
|
Mean
|
144.5
|
50.0
|
.00
|
1.01
|
.03
|
1.00
|
.01
|
|
35.1
|
35.9
|
|
P.SD
|
25.1
|
.0
|
.61
|
.25
|
1.30
|
.25
|
1.27
|
13.1
|
9.8
|
Table 5 shows the 1st criterion, which was that there are no misfit items; each item has a score greater than 0.5 and less than 1.5. According to the second criterion, three items are misfits; they are item numbers; 16, 6, and 13. Meanwhile, based on the third criterion, seven items are misfits; they are; 1, 4, 7, 9, 17, 22, and 25.
3. Rating Scale Diagnostic
This diagnosis determines whether the participants understand the differences in the answer choices. Respondents understand the difference in answers if the observed average and Andrich threshold values are increased by their level; the detail of the Andrich threshold values is presented in Table 6.
Table 6 Rating Scale Diagnostic Career Self Awareness
Category
Label
|
Observed
|
Observed sample
|
Infit
|
Outfit
|
Andrich Threshold
|
Category Measure
|
Count
|
%
|
Average
|
Expected
|
Mean-square
|
Mean-square
|
0
|
68
|
5
|
.00
|
-.14
|
1.19
|
1.18
|
None
|
(-2.12)
|
1
|
123
|
10
|
.08
|
.10
|
.95
|
.94
|
-.62
|
-.81
|
2
|
240
|
19
|
.34
|
.38
|
.94
|
.86
|
-.43
|
.00
|
3
|
266
|
21
|
.68
|
.71
|
1.10
|
1.07
|
.44
|
.82
|
4
|
553
|
44
|
1.12
|
1.09
|
.94
|
.96
|
.61
|
(2.12)
|
Table 6 shows the suitability and the same increase in alternative levels 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. The analysis results showed that the levels on the CSAI instrument correspond to the real behavioral conditions of victims of violence.
4. Item Bias Detection
Overall the logit position for each item based on gender is in Figure 2.
Another measure of validity is that the instruments and items used do not contain bias because one individual with certain characteristics is more favorable than another. An item statement is said to contain bias if the probability value of the item is below 0.05 [39]. In this study's context, bias only appears in terms of gender. The results of the bias analysis based on gender show that 25 items have a probability value >0.05.