The Effect Number of Replication and the Number of Option Scale toward the Reliability Coefficient of Maximal in the Rubric Assessment of Vocational Learning Outcome

Wardani Rahayu^1, and Zainal Abidin¹

¹Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, Rawamangun, Jakarta

Cite this paper:
Wardani Rahayu and Zainal Abidin. The Effect Number of Replication and the Number of Option Scale toward the Reliability Coefficient of Maximal in the Rubric Assessment of Vocational Learning Outcome. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(6):645-649. doi: 10.12691/education-5-6-9

Abstract

This study aims to determine the effect of number of replication and the number of option scale toward the maximal reliability coefficient in the assessment instrument rubric. This research used experimental method. The population is all students of state vocational high school of food processing technology of Cianjur in the 2014/2015 academic year. This research used t-test analysis. The result of the research shows that maximal reliability coefficient is higher with more and more option scale on instrument of rubric. Number of data replication has an effect on maximal reliability coefficient. The maximal reliability coefficient gets higher with more and more data replication on instrument of.

Keywords:
number of replication number of option scale rubric maximal reliability

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Berg, G. A. (2002). Why distance learning? Higher education administrativepractices. 88 Post Road West, Westport: Praeger Publisher.
[2]	Stevens, Danelle D. and Antoni J. Levi. (2005). Introduction to Rubric. Virginia : Stylus Publishing.
[3]	Ebel, Robert and David Frisbie. (1991). Essential of Educational Measurment. Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice-Hall Inc.
[4]	Anastasi, Anne and Susan Urbina. (1997). Tes Psikologi, terjemahan Robertus H. Imam. Jakarta: PT Prenhallindo.
[5]	Wiersma, William and Stephen G. Jurs, Educational Measurement and Testing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1990.
[6]	Mehrens, William A. and Irvin J. Lehmann. (1991). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
[7]	Azwar, Saifudin. Reliabilitas dan Validitas. (2002). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
[8]	Li, H., Rosenthal, R and Rubin, D.B (1996). Reliability of Measurement in Psychology: From Spearmen-Brown to Maximal Reliability. Journal of Psychological methods. Vol. 1, No. 98-107.
[9]	Kamata, A., A. Turhan., E. Darandari. Estimating Reliability for Multidimensional Composite Scale Scores. Paper. Presented at the annualmeeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 2003.
[10]	Jonsson, Anders and Gunilla Svingby. (2007). “The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validityand educational consequences.” Educational Research Review 2. 130-144.
[11]	Thompson, M. K., Clemmensen, L. K. H., & Ahn, B. (2013). “The Effect of Rubric Rating Scale on the Evaluation of Engineering Design Projects.” International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(6), 1490-1502.
[12]	Mueller, Daniel J. (1986). Measuring Social Attitudes. New York: Teachers College.
[13]	Bambang, Suprihatin. et al. “Estimasi Parameter Bootstrap Pada Proses AR(1).” http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11732680.pdf (diakses 20 Desember 2015).
[14]	Breaux, Kristina C dan Frances E. Frey, MA. “Reliability Coefficients and Standard Errors of Measurement for Subtest Component Scores.” http:// images. pearsonclinical. Com .../ WIAT3_TechRep”, (diakses 20 Desember 2015).
[15]	Chomeya, Rungson. (2010). Quality of Psychology Test Between Likert Scale 5 and 6 Points, Journal of Socila Sciences, 6(3), 399-403.