Youths are a dominant cluster in Malaysia's population. They need to be resilient as they are the anchor of our country's development. Resilience is often associated with Adversity Quotient (AQ). There are many instruments developed across contexts and countries; however, good validity and reliability in measuring the AQ of youths are still scarce. Therefore, this study seeks to examine whether the items developed for the Malaysian Youth Adversity Quotient Instrument (MY-AQi) in measuring AQ within the context of Malaysian youths managed to manifest good psychometric properties using Rasch analysis. Apart from that, this study aims to measure the construct validity of the MY-AQi items using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Four constructs of AQ were established, namely control, ownership, reach, and endurance. A total of 1000 youths were assigned using stratified random sampling from five zones in Malaysia: northern, western, southern, Borneo, and eastern. Analysis from WINSTEPS 3.71 has revealed that 27 items were able to meet Rasch statistical modeling, while CFA has shown that 12 AQ measuring items could function well. The findings of this study demonstrated the strengths of the psychometric aspects by combining Rasch and CFA analysis to prove item quality and construct stability. Future studies should endeavor to develop more items to establish better youth profiles and combine AQ with other appropriate variables, such as achievement and demography. Nevertheless, some limitations can be scrutinized including a report on the more in-depth errors in the analysis conducted.

Evaluating candidates’ answers in speaking skill is difficult and rarely explored. This task is challenging and can bring inconsistency in the rating quality among raters, especially in speaking assessments. Severe raters will bring more harm than good to the results that candidates receive. Many-faceted Rasch measurement (MFRM) was used to explore the differences in teachers’ rating severity based on their rating experience, training experience, and teaching experience. The research uses a quantitative approach and a survey method to enlist 164 English teachers who teach lower secondary school pupils, who were chosen through a multistage clustered sampling procedure. All the facets involving teachers, candidates, items, and domains were calibrated using MFRM. Every teacher scored six candidates’ responses in a speaking test consisting of three question items, and they were evaluated across three domains, namely vocabulary, grammar, and communicative competence. Results highlight that the rating quality was different in terms of teachers’ rating experience and teaching experience. However, training experience did not bring any difference to teachers’ rating quality on speaking test. The evidence from this study suggests that the two main factors of teaching and rating experience must be considered when appointing raters for the speaking test. The quality of training must be improved to produce a rater with good professional judgment. Raters need to be supplied with answer samples with varied levels of candidates’ performance to practice before becoming a good rater. Further research might explore any other rater bias that may impact the psychological well-being of certain groups of students.