Measuring the content validity of MEPI using Content Validity Ratio

Norashady Mohd Noor

Abstract

The main intention of this research is to examine the content validity of Marine Engineer Personality Inventory or MEPI for student candidates of Diploma in Marine Engineering course at Malaysian Polytechnics by using Content Validity Ratio (CVR). The assessment was conducted through the evaluation among 14 subject matter experts (SME) selected via judgment sampling. Seven professional university experts involved with the expertise in psychology, psychometric, educational measurement, and linguistics. The field experts specializing in particular fields of study consisted of seven practitioners who worked in the polytechnics field and maritime industry. The instrument involved 288 items with six main constructs. The results of the research show that the instrument has a good content validity and proved that MEPI has great potential to be promoted as a good measurement instrument of personality screening for Marine Engineering student selection process. It is recommended to apply more sophisticated statistical analysis, such as the Item Response Theory (IRT) model for elaborating on quality items. Keywords: Content validity, personality screening, content validity ratio, expert panel, marine engineering students

References

Allahyari, T., Rangi, N.H., Khosravi, Y., & Zayeri, F. (2011). Development and evaluation of a new questionnaire for rating of cognitive failures at work. International Journal Occupation. Hygiene 3(1), pp. 6–11.

Baheiraei, A., Khoori, E., Ahmadi, F., Foroushani, A.R., Ghofranipour, F., & Weiler, R.M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the adolescent health concern inventory: the Persian version. Journal of Psychiatry 8(1), pp. 28–36.

Davis, L.L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Application Nursery Research. pp. 194–197.

Delgado-Rico, E., Carretero-Dios, H. & Ruch, W. (2012). Content-related validity evidence in test development. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 12(3), pp. 449-460.

DeVon, H.A., Block, M.E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D.M., Hayden, S.J., Lazzara, D.J., Savoy, S.M. & Kostas-Polston, E. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 39(2), pp. 155-164.

Dewi Rooslani Tojib & Ly-Fie Sugianto (2006). Content validity of instruments in IS research. Journal of Information Technology Theory Applications. 8(3), pp. 31-56.

Grove, S.K., Burns, N., & Gray, J.R. (2013). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. St Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences.

Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Alabama: SAGE Publications Inc.

Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 28(4), pp. 563-575.

Lewis, B.R., Templeton, G.F. & Byrd, T.A. (2005). A methodology for construct development in MIS research. European Journal of Information System. 14(4), pp. 388-400.

Miller, L.A., Lovler, R.L. & McIntire, S.A. (2013). Foundations of psychological testing: a practical approach. California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Mohd Arif Shuib, Shukran Abdul Rahman and Nor Diana Mohd, Mahudin (2013). Assessing psychosocial elements of crowds during Hajj: Scale construction and content validation. Published in Proceedings of the 5th National Seminar on Hajj Best Practice.

Rubio, D.M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S.S., Lee, E.S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research: Oxford Journals. 27(2), pp. 94-105.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2011). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. New Delhi: John Wiley & Sons.

Van Rensburg, H., Basson, J.S. & Carrim, N.M.H. (2011). Human resource management as a profession in South Africa. Journal of Human Resource Management. 9(1), pp. 1-16.

Wilson, F.R., Pan, W. & Schumsky, D.A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 45(3), pp. 197-210.