The Instrument Construction for Students' Religious Moderation: Psychometric Analysis

Abstract

Religious moderation is becoming a prevalent focus to achieve social harmony and peace, preventing extremism, intolerance, and acts of violence. The current study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of an instrument measuring students' religious moderation attitudes. The research method used is the quantitative construction of measuring instruments. The scale development indicator uses the four dimensions of religious moderation developed by the Indonesian Ministry of Religion. The scale development procedure involved 10 experts consisting of academics and employees of the Metro City Ministry of Religion. 135 Respondents for the instrument trials were drawn using a random sampling technique, taking into account students of IAIN Metro in semesters 3, 5, and 7 who were still active. The results show that based on the consistency value of experts, which is known through the interquartile range (Q), there are 60 items out of 78 declared significant. The content validation category based on Aiken's V count is 0.693, which is interpreted as a moderate category. The items have been validated by experts and fulfilled the discriminatory power criteria according to the psychometric analysis prerequisites. Based on the validity test results, using the baseline correlation on 60 items, 36 items fulfilled the validity level. Reliability testing shows a coefficient of 0.800 (reliable) means that this scale is consistent. These findings are expected to benefit the measurement of students' religious moderation attitudes and serve as a need assessment in the establishment of regulations and policies in higher education.

Survey Attitude Toward The Level Of Understanding Of Descriptive Statistics by Students in Higher Education: Pair Comparison Methode

“…The Thurstone scale is synonymous with involving experts or judgment to rate statement items and asking to put the favorability of the statement on a psychological number that can predict the outcome being measured (Guffey et al, 2007;Halik et al, 2022) and also assess not for approval (Syaifuddin Azwar, 2012). This shows the advantages of using the thrustone scale, namely that the involvement of panelists avoids subjectivity, authenticity, bias, and accuracy (Saifuddin Azwar, 2020).…”