Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.5
,
No
.2
,
Jun
e
2
016
, pp
. 14
8
~
15
7
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
1
48
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
A Reliability and Validity of an
Instrument to Evaluate the
School
-B
as
ed Ass
e
ssm
ent
System: A Pilot Study
Nor
H
a
sni
d
a Md Gh
az
al
i
Faculty
of Education
and
Human
Development, Universiti
Pendidi
kan Sultan Id
ris, Malay
s
ia
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Apr 15, 2016
Rev
i
sed
May 25
, 20
16
Accepted
May 29, 2016
A valid,
rel
i
ab
le and pr
ac
tic
a
l
instrum
e
nt is
needed
to ev
alua
te th
e
implementation of the school-based a
ssessment (SBA)
s
y
stem. The aim of
this stud
y
is to develop and
assess the va
lidi
t
y
an
d reliab
ili
t
y
of
a
n
instrum
e
nt
to m
eas
ure
the
percep
tion of
t
e
achers
towards
t
h
e S
B
A im
plem
enta
tion
in
schools. The in
strument is dev
e
lope
d b
a
sed o
n
a con
ceptu
al framework
develop
e
d b
y
D
a
niel Stufflebeam, whic
h is
the CIPP
(context, input,
pro
cess
and product)
Ev
aluation Model.
The inst
rument in the form of questionnaire
is distributed
to
a sample o
f
120
prim
ar
y
and
secondar
y
school teachers. Th
e
response rate is 80 percent. The content
validity is assessed by
the exper
t
s
and th
e
construct validity
is measured b
y
Exp
l
or
ator
y
Factor
Analy
s
is (
E
FA).
The re
liab
ili
t
y
of the instrum
e
nt is
measured using inte
rnal consistence
reli
abil
it
y, whi
c
h is
m
eas
ured by a
l
pha
coeffi
ci
ent re
liab
ili
t
y
or
Cronbach
Alpha. Th
e find
ing of this pilo
t stud
y
s
hows tha
t
the instrum
e
nt
is valid
and
reli
able
. Fin
a
ll
y,
out of
71
item
s
,
68 it
em
s are r
e
t
a
ined.
Keyword:
CIPP M
odel
Ev
alu
a
tion
Ex
pl
orat
ory
fa
ct
or
a
n
al
y
s
i
s
School
-base
d
a
ssessm
ent
Copyright ©
201
6 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Nor Has
n
ida Md
Ghazali,
Facul
t
y
o
f
E
d
u
cat
i
on a
n
d
H
u
m
a
n De
vel
o
pm
ent
,
Un
i
v
ersity
Pend
id
ik
an
Su
ltan
Idris,
Malaysia,
Tan
j
o
n
g
M
a
l
i
m
, 359
00
, Pe
ra
k, M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
.
Em
a
il: h
a
sn
id
a@fp
p
m
.u
psi.ed
u.m
y
1.
INTRODUCTION
School
-base
d
assessm
ent (SBA) is a
n
as
sessm
en
t syst
e
m
wh
ich
h
a
s b
e
en
in
trodu
ced
t
o
th
e
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
n educat
i
on sy
st
e
m
i
n
2011
. It
i
s
a form
of assessm
ent con
d
u
ct
ed i
n
s
c
ho
ol
s f
o
l
l
o
wi
ng t
h
e
pr
oce
d
u
r
es f
r
o
m
t
h
e M
a
l
a
y
s
ian Ed
ucat
i
o
n Sy
ndi
cat
e [
1
]
.
It
i
s
pl
anne
d, a
d
m
i
ni
st
ered, score
d
an
d re
po
r
t
ed by
the students
’ s
u
bject teache
r
s. This is t
h
e
uni
que
pa
rt
of SBA c
o
m
p
ared to
public e
x
am
ination. SBA is
act
ual
l
y
bei
n
g
pr
o
pose
d
as
a ref
o
rm
m
ovem
e
nt
t
o
war
d
s
educat
i
o
n sy
s
t
em
fol
l
o
wi
n
g
t
h
e Tent
h-M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
n
Pl
an (
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
5
)
w
h
i
c
h i
n
c
l
udes t
h
e
Go
v
e
rnm
e
nt
Trans
f
o
r
m
a
ti
on Pr
o
g
ram
aspi
rat
i
on an
d t
h
e Eco
nom
i
c
New M
odel
.
S
B
A co
nsi
s
t
s
o
f
t
w
o t
y
pes o
f
a
ssessm
ent
,
assessm
ent
for l
earni
ng a
nd as
ses
s
m
e
nt
of l
earni
ng
. I
n
th
e Malaysian
co
n
t
ex
t, SBA
co
nsists o
f
four co
m
p
o
n
en
ts
whic
h are sc
hool asses
s
m
e
nt, central assess
ment,
p
s
ycho
m
e
tric a
ssessm
en
t an
d
p
h
y
sical activ
ity, spo
r
ts an
d
co
-cu
r
ricu
l
u
m
a
ssessm
en
t. Th
e
m
a
in
o
b
j
ectives of
th
e i
m
p
l
e
m
en
t
a
tio
n
of th
is new in
nov
atio
n are to
g
e
t
t
h
e over
a
l
l
pi
ct
ure of a
n
i
ndi
v
i
dual
’
s
pot
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
t
o
m
oni
t
o
r i
ndi
vi
dual
’
s de
vel
o
p
m
ent
and
hel
p
t
o
i
n
crea
se st
u
d
ent
s
’ p
o
t
e
nt
i
a
l
and t
o
m
a
ke m
eani
n
g
f
ul
rep
o
rt
i
n
g
o
n
ind
i
v
i
du
al learn
i
n
g
[2
]. In
ad
d
ition
,
SB
A is a fo
rm
o
f
assessm
en
t wh
ich
is fo
cu
sing
on
th
e enh
a
n
c
emen
t o
f
t
h
e m
eani
ngf
ul
ness
of
assess
m
e
nt
by
f
o
c
u
si
ng
m
o
re o
n
st
u
d
ent
s
’ l
ear
ni
n
g
de
vel
o
pm
ent
rat
h
er t
h
an
g
r
ad
e [3]
.
It also foc
u
ses on em
powe
r
ing sc
hool
s a
n
d teachers with quality assessm
en
t. To ensure the
quality of the
assessm
en
t i
m
p
l
em
en
tatio
n
,
fou
r
asp
ects
of qu
ality assuran
ce are co
nd
u
c
ted
.
Th
ey
are th
e m
o
d
e
ratin
g,
m
oni
t
o
ri
ng
, t
r
a
c
ki
n
g
an
d m
e
nt
ori
n
g
pr
ocess
e
s whi
c
h m
u
st
be i
m
pl
em
ented by
al
l
g
ove
rnm
e
nt
scho
ol
s [4]
.
The t
h
e
o
ret
i
cal
fram
e
wor
k
i
s
base
d
on
t
h
e C
I
PP
Eval
u
a
t
i
on M
o
del
d
e
vel
o
ped
by
Dani
el
St
uf
fl
ebeam
i
n
1
970
s [5
]. Th
is
m
o
d
e
l was
d
e
sign
ed
to
ev
alu
a
te pro
g
ram
s
, p
r
o
j
ects,
p
e
rson
n
e
l,
prod
u
c
ts, in
stitu
tio
n
s
or
sy
st
em
s from
vari
o
u
s
di
sc
i
p
l
i
n
es suc
h
as educat
i
o
n
fi
el
d, h
o
u
si
ng a
n
d com
m
uni
t
y
devel
opm
ent
,
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
A Reliability and V
a
lidity of
an Instrume
nt t
o
Ev
alua
te the
School B
a
sed .... (Nor
Has
n
ida M
d
Ghaz
ali)
14
9
tran
sp
ortatio
n,
safety and
m
ili
tary
per
s
o
n
n
el
revi
e
w
sy
st
em
s [
6
]
.
Any
e
d
u
cat
i
onal
pr
og
ra
m
l
i
k
e t
u
i
t
i
on,
ext
r
a
classes, co-c
urriculum
activities, se
m
i
nar, workshops, te
achers
’
recruitm
en
t p
o
licy, ped
a
gog
ic str
a
t
e
g
y
or
exam
i
n
at
i
on and ass
e
ssm
ent
sy
st
em
coul
d al
so be eval
uat
e
d
usi
n
g t
h
e C
I
PP E
v
al
u
a
t
i
on M
o
del
.
Whe
n
ev
alu
a
ting
,
it is i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
to
find
an
ev
al
u
a
t
i
o
n
wh
ich
su
its o
u
r m
a
in
in
te
rests in
th
e stud
y. Th
ere are a wid
e
vari
et
y
o
f
eval
uat
i
o
n
m
odel
s
wi
t
h
di
ffe
rent
cl
assi
fi
cat
i
on -
depe
n
d
i
n
g
on t
h
ei
r m
a
jor e
v
al
uat
i
o
n
m
e
t
hod
ol
o
g
y
,
target or purpose of e
v
aluation and the
responsi
b
ility
and accountability of e
v
alua
tion [7]. The m
a
in reason
why t
h
is e
v
aluation m
odel
is chosen for
this study
is
because t
h
is model
is ba
sed
on the
m
a
nage
m
e
nt-
ori
e
nt
ed e
v
al
u
a
t
i
on ap
p
r
oac
h
whi
c
h hel
p
s t
h
e deci
si
on
-m
akers t
o
pl
a
n
, i
m
pl
em
ent
and
eval
uat
e
pr
og
r
a
m
s
[8]
.
Furt
herm
ore, i
t
i
s
wi
del
y
used
by
t
h
e eval
uat
o
rs
[9]
an
d i
t
cove
rs
wi
de v
a
r
i
et
y
of di
m
e
nsions
w
h
i
c
h c
oul
d b
e
chosen by t
h
e
evaluators t
o
best suit their st
udies
[10].
Acco
r
d
i
n
g t
o
St
uf
fl
ebeam
, eval
uat
i
o
n i
n
v
o
l
v
es
deci
si
o
n
-m
aki
n
g, s
o
al
l
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
com
ponent
s
of
t
h
e
eval
uat
i
o
ns
(co
n
t
e
xt
, i
n
p
u
t
,
pr
ocess a
n
d
pr
od
uct
)
se
rv
e t
h
e
d
eci
si
ons
(pl
a
n
n
i
ng,
st
r
u
ct
u
r
i
n
g
,
i
m
pl
em
ent
i
n
g
an
d
recycling) re
spectively in dy
na
m
i
c actions.
Dynam
i
c
m
ean
s th
at th
e informatio
n
g
a
i
n
ed
from
any eval
uation
st
ages co
ul
d
be p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
any
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
st
ages, s
o
t
h
at
m
odi
fi
cat
ions c
o
ul
d
be
m
a
de [1
1]
. C
ont
e
x
t
eval
uat
i
o
n gi
v
e
s an op
p
o
rt
un
i
t
y
for t
h
e dec
i
si
on m
a
kers such as t
h
e m
i
ni
st
ry
st
aff, ad
m
i
ni
st
rat
i
on gr
ou
p o
r
sch
ool
l
eade
r
s
t
o
pl
an t
h
e
pr
o
g
ram
object
i
v
e
s
ei
t
h
er t
o
co
nf
i
r
m
t
h
e prese
n
t
ob
ject
i
v
es, m
odi
fy
i
t
or de
v
e
l
op a
n
e
w on
e [6
].
I
npu
t ev
al
u
a
tio
n g
i
v
e
s an
op
por
tun
ity to
d
ecid
e
on
t
h
e str
u
ct
u
r
e of
t
h
e
p
r
og
r
a
m
s
su
ch as
som
e
t
h
i
ng r
e
l
a
t
e
d t
o
st
rat
e
gi
es,
per
s
o
n
n
e
l
, res
o
u
r
ces,
pr
oce
d
u
r
es
or
a co
st
i
n
ac
hi
evi
n
g t
h
e
p
r
o
g
ram
s
ob
ject
i
v
es
whi
c
h ha
ve bee
n
deri
ve
d earl
i
er. Ne
xt
,
pr
oc
ess eval
uat
i
o
n
i
n
v
o
l
v
es m
a
ki
ng
deci
si
on
s on t
h
e
im
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
o
n o
f
t
h
e pr
o
g
r
a
m
such as t
h
e pr
og
ram
’
s desi
gns
, st
rat
e
gi
es or act
i
on
pl
ans. Last
l
y
i
s
pr
o
duc
t
eval
uat
i
o
n w
h
i
c
h i
n
vol
ves ev
al
uat
i
ng t
h
e
o
u
t
com
e
s of t
h
e pr
o
g
ram
s
. It
i
nvol
ves recy
cl
i
n
g deci
si
o
n
s
wh
ereby
the outcom
es of the program
s
is com
p
ar
ed to the objectives
of
t
h
e
pr
o
g
ram
s
whet
her t
o
c
o
nt
i
nue t
h
e p
r
o
g
r
am
or
n
o
t
,
fo
r e
x
a
m
pl
e. Al
l
of t
h
e f
o
ur
p
r
oce
s
ses co
ul
d
be
c
o
n
d
u
ct
ed
f
o
r t
w
o
m
a
i
n
pur
p
o
ses
–
fo
rm
at
ivel
y
o
r
su
mm
a
tiv
ely.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
ere
are v
a
ri
o
u
s st
udi
es
ha
ve
bee
n
de
vel
ope
d i
n
eval
uat
i
n
g SB
A i
m
pl
em
ent
a
ti
on, t
h
ere
i
s
l
ack o
f
st
u
d
i
e
s
and i
n
st
r
u
m
e
nt
s t
h
at
d
o
es t
h
e eval
uat
i
o
n i
n
va
ri
o
u
s di
m
e
nsi
o
ns as
pr
o
pos
ed
by
t
h
e
C
I
PP
Evaluation M
o
del. Recently,
there a
r
e som
e
researc
h
es
which foc
u
s on one dim
e
nsion
of
e
v
aluati
on
only
suc
h
as looki
ng at teac
hers’
attit
ude
towards SBA [12], teachers’
lead
e
r
shi
p
towa
rds SBA [13],
tea
c
hers’
knowledge a
n
d best
practises
in SBA
[14] or
challenges fac
e
d by
teach
ers
in im
ple
m
enting SB
A [15]. T
h
ere
i
s
al
so re
searc
h
w
h
i
c
h l
o
o
k
at
t
h
e co
rrel
a
t
i
o
n
bet
w
ee
n t
h
e
di
m
e
nsi
ons
[
16]
,
[
1
7
]
.
So
, t
h
e
r
e
i
s
an
ur
ge
nt
n
e
ed t
o
devel
o
p
an
i
n
st
rum
e
nt
whi
c
h i
s
a
b
l
e
t
o
e
v
al
uat
e
SB
A i
n
vari
ous
di
m
e
nsi
o
ns
o
f
e
v
al
uat
i
on.
He
nc
e, t
h
e
in
stru
m
e
n
t
could
th
en
b
e
u
s
ed to
d
e
term
in
e t
h
e in
terr
el
at
i
o
n
s
hi
p bet
w
ee
n d
i
m
e
nsi
ons of
e
v
al
uat
i
o
n. H
o
weve
r,
the instrum
e
nt use
d
to assess
teacher
s’
perce
p
tions a
n
d attit
ude
about a
n
y
particula
r
c
onc
epts relate
d to
SBA
need t
o
be
first
evaluated
before it can
be adm
i
nistered
. T
h
i
s
co
ul
d
be d
one t
h
r
o
u
g
h
pi
l
o
t
st
udy
.
Act
u
al
l
y
, al
l
st
udi
es h
a
ve t
o
be pi
l
o
t
e
d
bef
o
re t
h
e
real
st
u
d
y
i
s
con
duct
e
d. A
s
[1
8]
asse
rt
ed t
h
at
‘
al
m
o
st
anyt
h
i
ng ab
out
a
so
cia
l
su
rvey ca
n and
sh
ou
ld
b
e
p
ilo
ted’
.
Al
th
ou
gh
p
ilo
t st
u
d
y
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
a b
it ted
i
ou
s, it
is v
e
ry im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
to
ch
eck th
e
v
a
lidity, reliab
ility a
n
d practicality
o
f
an in
stru
m
e
n
t
[19
]
.
An i
n
st
rum
e
nt
i
s
val
i
d
whe
n
i
t
i
s
m
easuri
n
g
what
i
s
su
p
pos
ed t
o
m
easure [2
0]
. O
r
, i
n
ot
her
wo
rd
s,
whe
n
a
n
instrument accurately
m
easures any prescri
b
e
d
variable it is conside
r
ed a
valid instrum
e
nt for tha
t
particula
r
va
riable. The
r
e are four types
of
validity
; face validity, criterion vali
dity, content vali
dity or
construct validity
[20],[21].
Face validity is looking at the c
once
p
t of
whet
her t
h
e test looks
valid or
not
on its
surface
[21]. C
r
iterion validit
y is a co
ncept whic
h will
be dem
onstrated
i
n
the
actual st
udy as to esta
blish it
n
eeds ‘
a
goo
d kn
ow
ledg
e
of th
eor
y
r
e
lating
to th
e
co
nce
p
t
an
d a
m
easure
o
f
t
h
e
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
bet
w
e
e
n
o
u
r
m
easure a
nd t
hos
e fact
ors
’
[
20]
whe
r
eas c
ont
e
n
t
val
i
d
i
t
y
is lo
ok
ing
at th
e con
t
en
t o
f
ite
m
s
wh
eth
e
r it really
measu
r
es th
e co
n
c
ep
t b
e
ing
m
easu
r
ed
in
th
e stu
d
y
. Finally
is th
e co
n
s
tru
c
t v
a
lid
ity, wh
ich
m
easu
r
es t
h
e
extent to whic
h a
n
instrum
e
nt accurately m
e
asure
s
a t
h
eore
tical construct
that it is desi
gned to m
easure.
Reliab
ilit
y o
n
th
e
o
t
h
e
r h
a
n
d
is d
e
fin
e
d as ‘t
h
e
ex
ten
t
to
wh
ich
t
e
st sco
r
es are free fro
m
measu
r
em
en
t erro
r’ [20
]
. It is a
m
easu
r
e
o
f
stab
ility o
r
in
tern
al co
n
s
istency o
f
an
in
strumen
t
in
m
easu
r
ing
certain
co
n
c
epts [21
]
.
Acco
rd
ing
t
o
[22
]
, t
h
ere are v
a
riou
s typ
e
s
o
f
rel
i
ab
ility d
e
p
e
ndin
g
on
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
er of
tim
e
s the instrum
e
nts are administer
ed
and th
e nu
m
b
er
of
ind
i
v
i
du
als
wh
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e i
n
f
o
rm
at
i
on. T
h
ere a
r
e
test-retest reliab
ility, altern
ate form
s reliab
ili
ty, altern
at
e form
s an
d
test-retest reliab
ility,
in
tern
al co
n
s
ist
e
n
c
y
reliab
ility an
d
in
ter-rater
reliab
ility. Test-retest reliab
ility
is a fo
rm
o
f
reliab
ility ach
ie
v
e
d wh
en
t
h
e
sam
e
instrum
e
nt is adm
i
nistered to the
sam
e
group of res
p
onde
nt
s on two
diffe
rent
occasio
ns
and yet look a
t
the
correlation
between the t
w
o s
e
ts of scores [23]. The
hi
gher
the correlation
value m
ean
in
g th
at th
e in
strumen
t
is
m
o
re reliab
l
e. Altern
ate form
s reliab
ilit
y is th
e ex
ten
t
to wh
ich
scores
fro
m
o
n
e
sam
p
le are stab
le
ov
er an
adm
i
ni
st
rat
i
on of t
w
o i
n
st
r
u
m
e
nt
s of di
ffe
re
nt
versi
ons
of
t
h
e i
n
st
rum
e
nt
s wi
t
h
t
h
e sam
e
conce
p
t
but
bei
n
g
ad
m
i
n
i
stered
t
w
ice at d
i
fferen
t
at two
d
i
fferen
t ti
m
e
in
t
e
rv
als.
Altern
ate fo
rm
s an
d
test-retest reliab
ility
co
m
b
in
es bo
th con
cep
t abo
v
e
. In
tern
al con
s
i
s
ten
c
y reliab
ility is lo
ok
ing
at th
e correlation
b
e
tween
all i
t
e
m
s
th
at
m
a
k
e
u
p
t
h
e con
s
tru
c
ts to
en
sure th
at th
e ite
m
s
are
measu
r
i
n
g
t
h
e same co
n
cep
t
[20
]
. Lastly is th
e in
ter-
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
14
8 – 1
5
7
15
0
rater reliability, a conce
p
t looki
ng at whet
her sc
ores fr
om
one sam
p
le are consistent
whe
n
m
o
re than one
obs
er
ver
rec
o
r
d
s t
h
e
beha
vi
o
u
r
o
f
resp
o
nde
nt
s at
t
h
e
sam
e
t
i
m
e
usi
n
g
t
h
e
sam
e
i
n
st
rum
e
nt
[
2
2]
.
Th
ere is a
relatio
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
tween
v
a
lid
ity and
reliab
ility. Any in
stru
m
e
n
t
can
b
e
reliab
l
e
b
u
t
n
o
t
v
a
lid
h
o
wev
e
r, it can
n
o
t
b
e
v
a
lid
if it is no
t reliab
l
e [21
]
. In
oth
e
r
word
s, i
f
an
in
st
ru
m
e
n
t
is v
a
lid
, it m
u
st b
e
reliab
l
e. An
d, in
g
e
n
e
ral, ch
eck
i
ng
fo
r
v
a
lid
ity o
f
an
in
strumen
t
is
m
o
re d
i
fficu
lt th
an
check
ing
fo
r reli
ab
ility
because
validi
t
y is m
easuring data relate
d t
o
k
nowledge whereas
reliability
only concerns wit
h
t
h
e
co
nsisten
c
y of
sco
r
es.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
Th
is
p
ilo
t study w
a
s co
ndu
cted
at th
e
pr
im
a
r
y and
seco
nd
ar
y schoo
ls in
Melak
a
, a state at th
e sou
t
h
of Pe
nins
ular
Malaysia. It
is
not the place of the actua
l research but it has a simila
r background to the actual
st
udy
.
The
res
p
o
n
d
ent
s
we
re
re
quest
e
d
t
o
s
i
gn
o
n
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
ed co
nse
n
t
f
o
rm
at
t
ached
wi
t
h
t
h
e
quest
i
o
n
n
ai
r
e
whi
c
h
w
oul
d s
e
rve
as a
n
evi
d
ence
of
t
h
ei
r
vol
unt
a
r
y
pa
rticip
atio
n in
t
h
e stud
y.
Th
e d
a
ta co
llectio
n pro
cess
was m
a
de i
n
June
2
0
1
2
.
Dat
a
i
s
col
l
ect
ed from
fou
r
di
f
f
er
ent
t
y
pes of s
c
ho
ol
s –
pri
m
ary
and sec
o
n
d
ar
y
from
urba
n and rura
l areas. Teache
r
s are selected using the co
nvenience sam
p
ling m
e
thod. In
gene
ral, data can be
collected from an instrum
e
nt such as a t
e
s
t
, scal
e, obse
r
vat
i
on
pr
oce
d
u
r
e, an
d q
u
est
i
on
nai
r
e
or i
n
t
e
rvi
e
w
sche
dul
e
[1
1]
.
Quest
i
on
nai
r
e
coul
d ei
t
h
e
r
be
st
ruct
ure
d
, se
m
i
-st
r
uct
u
re
d
or
u
n
st
r
u
ct
u
r
e
d
a
nd t
h
e i
t
e
m
s
co
ul
d
ei
t
h
er
be a cl
o
s
ed
or
an
o
p
e
n
t
y
pe [
1
9]
. I
n
t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
,
q
u
es
t
i
onnai
r
e i
s
st
r
u
ct
u
r
ed
an
d t
h
e i
t
e
m
s
are a c
l
osed
typ
e
. All th
e i
t
e
m
s fo
r ev
aluatio
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
io
n
s
are rated
on
a
5
-
po
in
t Li
k
e
rt scale
from
to
tally d
i
sa
g
r
ee t
o
to
tally ag
ree. In
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
it
e
m
s fo
r t
h
e
q
u
estio
nn
aire
, i
n
itiall
y th
e research
er
d
e
term
in
es th
e ch
aracteristics
l
i
s
t
e
d by
St
u
ffl
ebeam
i
n
t
h
e
C
I
PP M
odel
f
o
r c
o
nt
ext
,
i
n
p
u
t
,
pr
ocess a
n
d
pr
od
uct
di
m
e
nsi
o
ns
of
eva
l
uat
i
on.
The
n
, co
nst
r
u
c
ts for se
ve
ral instrum
e
nts o
n
SBA
,
es
p
eci
ally th
o
s
e d
e
velo
p
e
d
with
resp
ect to
th
e
Asian
co
un
tries are l
o
ok
ed
in
to
. Th
e research
er tri
e
s to
m
a
tch
an
y su
itab
l
e co
n
s
tru
c
ts with
th
e
d
i
m
e
n
s
io
n
s
sug
g
e
sted
by
St
uf
fl
ebea
m
as t
h
ere are no i
n
st
rum
e
nt
s whi
c
h f
o
l
l
o
w t
h
e di
m
e
nsi
ons s
u
gge
st
ed
by
St
uf
fl
ebea
m
.
Aft
e
r
t
h
at
,
al
l
t
h
e
c
onst
r
uct
s
g
o
t
h
r
o
ug
h
t
h
e pr
ocess o
f
op
era
t
i
onal
i
z
i
n
g
as sug
g
est
e
d by
C
ohe
n
et
al.
It is the
pr
ocess
o
f
s
h
i
f
t
i
ng
a
gene
ral
i
zed pu
r
pose
of que
st
i
o
n
n
ai
re
to a
speci
fic set
of fe
ature
s
to
enable
em
pirical data
is co
llected
fro
m
th
e ite
m
s
i
n
th
e qu
estionn
aire. Th
e qu
estio
nn
aire is
div
i
d
e
d in
to two
section
s
: th
e m
a
in
sect
i
on o
n
va
ri
ous
di
m
e
nsi
o
n
s
of eval
uat
i
o
n
of SB
A f
o
l
l
o
ws wi
t
h
t
h
e de
m
ograp
hi
c i
n
f
o
rm
at
i
on. The
r
e are 71
q
u
e
stio
n
s
on
t
h
e f
i
r
s
t section an
d 12
qu
estions on
t
h
e seco
nd sectio
n.
IBM Statistical Packa
g
e
for the Soci
al Scien
ces
(SPSS v
e
rsion
20
.0
) is
u
s
ed
for t
h
e analysis o
f
th
e
d
a
ta. In
ach
iev
i
ng
con
t
en
t valid
ity o
f
an
in
stru
m
e
n
t
,
the researc
h
er
ha
s
m
a
de an extensive sea
r
ch
of the
literatu
re fro
m th
eories,
prev
i
o
u
s
in
st
ru
m
e
n
t
s, m
o
d
e
ls an
d
p
a
st research
fin
d
i
ng
s fo
r th
e con
cep
ts relat
e
d
to
SB
A i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on.
The
n
,
a pr
ofe
sso
r
wh
o i
s
an e
x
pert
i
n
this a
r
ea is referred t
o
.
Next is to chec
k for face
validity. In order to asse
ss for face vali
dity, few
res
p
ond
ents who a
r
e pra
c
tising SBA in schools a
r
e as
ked
t
o
ju
d
g
e t
h
e i
t
e
m
s
and t
h
en
gi
ve
com
m
e
nt
s on
t
h
e q
u
est
i
o
nnai
r
e. A
few c
h
a
n
ges are m
a
de u
p
o
n
c
o
m
m
e
nt
s such
as ‘SB
A
i
s
no
n-t
h
reat
eni
n
g’
i
s
chan
ge
d t
o
‘
S
B
A
i
s
n
o
t
b
u
r
d
eni
ng t
o
m
e
’. Fi
nal
l
y
, expl
o
r
at
ory
fact
or a
n
al
y
s
i
s
(EF
A
) i
s
use
d
t
o
check f
o
r
const
r
uct
val
i
di
t
y
. B
y
defi
ni
t
i
on, EF
A i
s
a t
echni
que
used t
o
ex
pl
ore t
h
e
i
n
t
e
rrel
a
t
i
o
nshi
ps am
ong a set
of vari
a
b
l
e
s [2
3]
. An i
n
depe
n
d
ent
EF
A usi
n
g t
h
e p
r
i
n
ci
pal
com
pone
nt
s
an
alysis (PCA) with
a ro
tatio
n
called
Direct Ob
li
m
i
n
is
co
ndu
cted
on
th
e q
u
e
sti
o
nn
air
e
. Eig
e
nv
alue o
r
v
a
rian
ce ex
tracted
b
y
th
e
facto
r
g
r
eater t
h
an
1
is
u
s
ed
.
Nex
t
, in th
is stu
d
y
,
reliab
ility o
f
th
e i
n
strumen
t
is
m
easured
using internal cons
istence reliability as
this
study involves
onl
y one vers
i
o
n of instrum
e
nt
and i
s
ad
m
i
n
i
stered
on
ce t
o
all th
e respo
n
d
e
n
t
s.
It
clearly sho
w
s t
h
at th
is
stud
y lack
s test-retest reliab
ility aspect as
q
u
e
stio
nn
aire i
s
ad
m
i
n
i
stered on
ly o
n
c
e. In
term
s o
f
p
r
acticalit
y o
f
th
e in
st
ru
m
e
n
t
, when
p
ilo
t st
u
d
y
i
s
co
ndu
cted
, th
e r
e
sp
ond
en
ts ar
e ask
e
d to commen
t
o
n
t
h
e wo
rd
ing
,
ti
m
i
n
g
and th
eir un
d
e
r
s
tand
ing of
the
ite
m
s
. They are also as
ke
d to
make suggestions
on
content
that they feel a
r
e m
o
re s
u
itable.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
15
0
q
u
est
i
o
nn
ai
res were
di
s
t
ri
but
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
res
p
on
de
nt
s and fi
nal
l
y
, 120 re
sp
o
nde
nt
s resp
on
de
d
.
N
ear
ly
9
0
p
e
rcen
t r
e
spo
n
d
e
nts ar
e Malay an
d n
e
ar
ly two
-
th
ir
d
s
ar
e f
e
male. N
e
ar
ly h
a
l
f
of
t
h
e r
e
spond
en
ts
had
10 to 20 years of teachi
n
g experi
enc
e
and
nearly half of them
expe
ri
ence one year in practising SBA.
Nex
t
, th
e
reliab
ility an
d
v
a
lid
ity o
f
th
e
in
stru
m
e
n
t
are presen
ted
b
e
lo
w accord
i
n
g
to
th
e ev
aluatio
n
di
m
e
nsi
ons (i
np
ut
,
pr
ocess
and
p
r
o
d
u
ct
)
of SB
A i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
on. C
o
nt
ext
eval
uat
i
on c
o
nsi
d
e
r
s
whet
he
r
teachers a
r
e
from
urba
n-rural
or
pr
im
ary-seconda
r
y
type of school.
3.
1.
Relia
bility and Va
lidity
fo
r
Input Eva
l
ua
tio
n
In
p
u
t
di
m
e
nsi
o
n of
eval
uat
i
o
n
co
nsi
s
t
s
of
t
h
r
ee
co
nst
r
uct
s
- m
a
t
e
ri
al
and p
e
rso
n
al
nee
d
s
i
n
SB
A,
t
h
e
ap
pro
p
riaten
ess of
p
e
rsonn
el’s
n
u
m
b
e
r and qu
alificatio
n
an
d th
e su
itabilit
y o
f
ph
ysical in
frastru
c
tu
re and
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
A Reliability and V
a
lidity of
an Instrume
nt t
o
Ev
alua
te the
School B
a
sed .... (Nor
Has
n
ida M
d
Ghaz
ali)
15
1
ICT. Each
constru
c
t h
a
s th
ree ite
m
s
so
th
ere are n
i
n
e
i
t
e
m
s
al
t
oget
h
e
r
f
o
r i
n
p
u
t
di
m
e
nsi
o
n. C
r
o
nbac
h
’s
Al
p
h
a
val
u
e i
s
s
h
ow
n
i
n
Ta
bl
e 1
.
C
r
on
bac
h
’s
al
p
h
a
fo
r t
h
e
fi
rst
c
onst
r
uct
(m
at
eri
a
l
and
pe
rs
on
al
needs
i
n
SB
A) i
s
0
.
7
7
9
,
fo
r th
e seco
nd
con
s
tru
c
t (
a
pp
rop
r
iateness of
p
e
rsonnel’
s nu
m
b
er
and
q
u
a
lif
ication)
is
0
.
5
17 and
fo
r th
e
th
ird
con
s
tru
c
t (su
itab
ility o
f
p
h
y
sical infrastru
cture a
n
d
IC
T) is 0.809
.
As th
e v
a
l
u
e of C
r
onb
ach’s alpha h
a
s
to be above
0.7 for the item
s
to be acceptable for the
rese
a
r
ch
purposes
, then
A18 from
the second c
o
nstruct
i
s
del
e
t
e
d.
T
h
e
al
pha
val
u
e s
h
ows
an
i
n
c
r
em
ent
f
r
om
0.
51
7
t
o
0.
67
5.
Tabl
e
1.
Val
u
e
s
o
f
C
r
o
nbac
h
’
s
Al
p
h
a
i
f
i
t
e
m
del
e
t
e
d
an
d
O
v
eral
l
C
r
o
nbac
h
’s
Al
pha
f
o
r
t
h
e
In
p
u
t
Eval
u
a
t
i
on
C
onst
r
uct
s
I
nput E
v
aluation Constr
ucts
I
t
em
Cr
onbach’
s
Alpha
if ite
m
deleted
Overall Cronbach’
s
Alpha Value
1.
Materi
al and perso
n
al needs in the
SB
A s
y
ste
m
A15 0.
689
0.
779
A16 0.
771
A17 0.
635
2.
Appr
opr
iateness of
per
s
onnel’
s nu
m
b
er
and qualifications
A18
0.
675
0.
517
A19 0.
366
A20 0.
209
3.
Suitability of physical
infrastructure
and ICT
A21 0.
782
0.
809
A22 0.
723
A23 0.
706
Tabl
e
2. T
w
o-
f
act
or
pat
t
e
r
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
s
h
o
w
i
n
g t
h
e
fact
or
l
o
a
d
i
ngs
o
f
eac
h
o
f
t
h
e va
ri
abl
e
s
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1
2
A23
0.
821
A22
0.
813
A21
0.
807
A20
0.
689
A19
0.
613
A17
0.
847
A16
0.
840
A15
0.
782
On
ly fact
o
r
l
o
ad
i
n
gs m
o
re th
an
0
.
3
are co
un
ted
t
o
ward
s an
y fact
o
r
s
bu
t still,
m
ean
in
gfu
l
in
ter
p
r
e
tatio
n
s
h
a
v
e
to
b
e
car
e
f
u
lly b
een
done w
h
en
d
oub
le lo
ad
ing
s
o
c
cur [
2
0
]
. PC
A
is r
u
n
af
ter
th
e d
e
letio
n
of
A1
8.
Tw
o
fact
or
s are
fo
r
m
ed as sh
ow
n
i
n
Tabl
e
2.
T
h
e resea
r
c
h
er
decides t
o
continue with t
h
e
three
co
nstru
c
ts as
p
r
ev
iou
s
ly b
e
en
h
ypo
t
h
esized
realizin
g
t
h
e
fact that factor a
n
alysis
on
l
y
i
ndi
cat
es const
r
uct
v
a
lid
ity an
d not
m
u
ch
on
con
t
en
t v
a
lid
ity. In add
itio
n
,
t
h
e
researche
r
als
o
feels that
it is b
e
tter to
d
i
fferen
tiate
bet
w
ee
n t
h
e
co
nst
r
uct
o
n
‘pe
r
son
n
el
’
an
d
‘ph
y
sical in
frastru
c
ture’. So
, t
h
e th
ree con
s
tru
c
ts are m
a
in
tain
ed
for
i
n
p
u
t
eval
uat
i
o
n. T
h
e
de
faul
t
set
t
i
ng i
s
t
h
e
n
c
h
an
ge
d as
sho
w
n i
n
Tabl
e 3,
wi
t
h
t
h
e
num
ber
of
fact
ors
are
specified to three. It clea
rly shows t
h
at th
e typ
e
o
f
item
s
th
at con
t
ribu
ted
to
t
h
e fact
o
r
s is th
e sam
e
a
s
h
a
ve
been prese
n
ted earlier
by the
theory.
Table 3.
T
h
ree
-factor pattern matrix
showi
n
g
the
fact
or l
o
a
d
ings
of each of the
va
riables
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1
2
3
A23
0.
905
A22
0.
804
A21
0.
761
A15
0.
833
A16
0.
829
A17
0.
812
A19
-
0
.
852
A20
-
0
.
843
3.
2.
Relia
bility and Va
lidity
fo
r
Pro
cess Eva
l
ua
ti
o
n
Pro
cess di
m
e
nsi
on
of eval
uat
i
on co
nsi
s
t
s
o
f
t
e
n
m
a
i
n
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
ts altog
e
th
er (b
elief, feeling
,
read
in
ess,
u
n
d
e
rstand
ing
,
sk
ill, in
-ho
u
se train
i
n
g
, admin
i
stratio
n
,
m
o
d
e
ratio
n
,
mo
n
itoring
and
ch
allen
g
es). Fi
rst is to
look at the first
three construc
ts wh
ich c
o
ntribute
d
to the attitude of t
eache
r
s towa
rds SB
A. Teac
hers’ a
ttitude
co
nsists o
f
three sub
-
con
s
tru
c
ts wh
ich
are b
e
lief,
feeling a
nd re
adi
n
ess towards SBA. Looking at the
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
14
8 – 1
5
7
15
2
reliab
ility o
f
ite
m
s
in
Tab
l
e 4 and
co
nsid
eri
n
g
th
e three-f
acto
r
p
a
ttern
m
a
trix
of
fact
or an
alysis o
n
t
h
ose i
t
e
m
s
i
n
Ta
bl
e 5
,
f
e
w
deci
si
o
n
s
ha
ve
bee
n
m
a
de.
i)
Fo
r b
e
lief sub-co
nstru
c
t, all th
e three item
s
,
A1
,
A2
and
A5
are m
a
in
tain
ed
an
d on
e item
,
i
t
e
m
A7
fro
m
‘feeling’ const
r
uct is
adde
d t
o
it.
Item
A7 s
t
ates th
at ‘SB
A
ca
n
be e
ffec
tively incorporated int
o
e
x
isting
lesso
n
s
’. Item
A6 is d
e
leted
to
in
crease t
h
e
Cron
b
a
ch
al
pha value
.
T
h
e C
r
onbach alpha
value
for t
h
e
four
i
t
e
m
s
, A1,
A
2
,
A5
an
d
A
7
i
s
i
m
prove
d f
r
o
m
0.
67
1 t
o
0.
74
9.
ii)
Fo
r feeling
sub
-
con
s
tru
c
t, on
ly on
e ite
m
,
ite
m
A4
is main
tain
ed
and
item
A3
is d
e
leted
.
Sin
c
e the
C
r
o
nbac
h
al
p
h
a
i
s
l
o
w, an
ot
her t
w
o i
t
e
m
s
are adde
d. T
h
ey
are ‘SB
A
i
s
not
b
o
ri
n
g
’
an
d ‘SB
A
i
s
com
pulsory
’.
iii)
Fo
r read
in
ess su
b-co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t,
A8 is d
e
leted an
d th
e Cronb
ach
alph
a
v
a
lu
e
for th
e t
h
ree ite
m
s
, A9,
A10
an
d
A
1
1
is im
p
r
oved
f
r
o
m
0
.
58
1
to
0.654
.
The fourth, fift
h, sixt
h and se
vent
h construc
ts are the teachers’
unde
rstanding on SBA, the effe
ct of
SB
A co
ur
ses,
IHT
on
SB
A
and e
n
c
o
u
r
age
m
ent
by
adm
i
ni
st
rat
o
rs. C
o
n
s
i
d
eri
n
g t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e of t
h
e C
r
on
bac
h
Alph
a in
Tab
l
e 4
an
d
th
e three-factor p
a
ttern
m
a
trix
fact
or
anal
y
s
i
s
of i
t
e
m
s
i
n
Tabl
e 6, few deci
si
o
n
s
hav
e
been m
a
de as follows:
i)
For t
h
e fourth
construct,
‘teacher
s
’
underst
andi
ng
on SB
A’, all the three ite
m
s
, A12, A13 and A14 are
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
ed
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
r
on
bac
h
al
pha
val
u
e i
s
0.
64
4.
ii)
Fo
r t
h
e fift
h
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t,
‘effect o
f
SB
A cou
r
ses’, all
th
e fou
r
item
s
, B2
6
i
), ii), iii) and
iv
) are m
a
in
tai
n
ed
with
th
e Cro
nbach
al
ph
a
v
a
l
u
e is 0.992
.
Tabl
e
4.
Val
u
e
s
o
f
C
r
o
nbac
h
’
s
Al
p
h
a
i
f
i
t
e
m
del
e
t
e
d
an
d
O
v
eral
l
C
r
o
nbac
h
’s
Al
pha
f
o
r
t
h
e P
r
ocess
Eval
uat
i
o
n C
o
nst
r
uct
s
Pr
ocess E
v
aluation Constr
ucts
I
t
em
Cr
onbach’
s
Alpha if
ite
m
delet
e
d
Overall Cronbach’
s
Alpha Value
1.
Teacher
’s attitude:
teacher
’s belief
A1
0.526
0.671
A2 0.
548
A5 0.
642
A6 0.
694
2.
Teacher
’s attitude:
teacher
’s
f
eeling
A3
0.227
0.523
A4 0.
488
A7 0.
500
3.
Teacher
’s attitude:
teacher
’s re
adiness
A8
0.654
0.581
A9 0.
429
A10 0.
490
A11 0.
455
4.
Teacher’s understa
nding o
n
SBA
A12
0.510
0.644
A13 0.
555
A14 0.
579
5.
Effect of courses on i
m
p
r
oving skills of
SBA
B26i
0.
990
0.
992
B26ii
0.
988
B26iii
0.
990
B26iv
0.
989
6.
I
H
T on SBA
B27i
0.
968
0.
973
B27ii
0.
955
B27iii
0.
959
7.
E
n
cour
agem
ent
by
ad
m
i
nistr
a
tion
B28i
0.
610
0.
543
B28ii
0.
400
B28iii
0.
278
8.
M
oder
a
tion pr
ocess
B29i
0.
862
0.
892
B29ii
0.
861
B29iii
0.
818
9.
M
onitor
i
ng pr
ocess
B30i
0.
649
0.
793
B30ii
0.
792
B30iii
0.
705
10.
Challenges
C1
0.
837
0.
836
C2 0.
832
C3 0.
813
C4 0.
818
C5 0.
819
C6 0.
821
C7 0.
820
C8 0.
821
C9 0.
817
C10
0.
827
C11
0.
836
C12
0.
818
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
A Reliability and V
a
lidity of
an Instrume
nt t
o
Ev
alua
te the
School B
a
sed .... (Nor
Has
n
ida M
d
Ghaz
ali)
15
3
iii)
Fo
r th
e six
t
h
co
nstru
c
t, ‘IHT on
SBA’, al
l th
e thr
ee item
s
, B2
7
i
), ii)
an
d iii) are main
tain
ed with th
e
C
r
o
nbac
h
al
ph
a val
u
e
i
s
0.
97
3.
iv
)
For
t
h
e se
ve
nt
h c
onst
r
uct
,
‘e
nco
u
r
agem
ent
by
adm
i
ni
st
rat
i
o
n
’
, i
t
e
m
B
28i
) i
s
del
e
t
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e C
r
o
n
b
a
c
h
al
pha
val
u
e i
n
c
r
eases
fr
om
0.5
4
3
t
o
0.
6
1
0
.
Tab
l
e 5
.
Three-factor p
a
ttern
matrix
sho
w
i
n
g
th
e fact
o
r
l
o
ad
ing
s
o
f
attitu
de con
s
tru
c
t
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1
2
3
A7
0.
866
A5
0.
719
-
0
.
317
A1
0.
644
A2
0.
639
0.
380
A9
0.
883
A10
0.
766
A11
0.
550
A3
0.
347
0.
393
0.
334
A4
0.
906
Tabl
e
6. T
h
ree
-fact
o
r
pat
t
e
r
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
sh
owi
n
g t
h
e
fact
or l
o
a
d
i
n
gs
of
u
n
d
er
st
andi
ng
, ef
fec
t
of
SB
A
co
u
r
s
e
s,
IHT
o
n
SBA a
n
d
adm
i
nistrators
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1
2
3
A12
0.
783
A13
0.
690
A14
0.
799
-
0
.
310
B26i
0.
977
B26ii
0.
994
B26iii
0.
972
B26iv
0.
992
B27i
0.
971
B27ii
0.
951
B27iii
0.
977
B28ii
0.
807
B28iii
0.
839
The ei
g
h
t
h
, ni
nt
h a
nd t
e
nt
h
con
s
t
r
uct
s
a
r
e
t
h
e m
oderat
i
o
n
pr
ocess, t
h
e
m
oni
t
o
ri
ng
pr
o
cess an
d t
h
e
chal
l
e
ng
es
fac
e
d
by
t
h
e
res
p
on
de
nt
s. C
o
n
s
i
d
eri
n
g
t
h
e
val
u
e
of
C
r
on
bac
h
al
p
h
a
i
n
T
a
b
l
e 4,
t
h
e t
h
ree
-
fact
or
p
a
ttern m
a
trix
facto
r
an
alysis in
Tab
l
e
7
an
d
th
e two
-
fact
or
p
a
ttern m
a
trix
in
Tab
l
e
8
,
all i
t
e
m
s are m
a
in
t
a
in
ed
according t
o
the theory.
Tabl
e
7. T
h
ree
-fact
o
r
pat
t
e
r
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
sh
owi
n
g t
h
e
fact
or l
o
a
d
i
n
gs
of
i
t
e
m
s
on
m
oderat
i
o
n,
m
oni
t
o
ri
n
g
a
n
d
challenges
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1 2
3
B29i
-
0
.
908
B29ii
-
0
.
864
B29iii
-
0
.
838
B30i
-
0
.
693
B30ii
-
0
.
708
B30iii
-
0
.
644
C1
0.
401
0.
356
C2
0.
880
C3 0.
330
0.
523
C4
0.
551
C5
0.
518
C6
0.
832
C7
0.
597
C8 0.
750
C9 0.
640
C10
0.
816
C11
0.
414
-
0
.
394
C12
0.
748
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
14
8 – 1
5
7
15
4
Tabl
e
8. T
w
o-
f
act
or
pat
t
e
r
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
s
h
o
w
i
n
g t
h
e
fact
or
l
o
a
d
i
ngs
o
f
i
t
e
m
s
on
m
oderat
i
o
n
,
m
oni
t
o
ri
n
g
a
n
d
challenges
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1
2
C3
0.
691
C12
0.
673
C9
0.
673
C7
0.
668
C4
0.
667
C5
0.
648
C6
0.
628
C8
0.
621
C10
0.
528
C2
0.
505
C1
0.
445
0.
419
B29i
-
0
.
884
B29ii
-
0
.
829
B29iii
-
0
.
765
B30i
-
0
.
758
B30ii
-
0
.
703
B30iii
-
0
.
681
C11
0.
353
-
0
.
474
3.
3.
Relia
bility and Va
lidity
fo
r
Pro
cess Eva
l
ua
ti
o
n
(Schoo
l Improv
ement Constructs)
There a
r
e si
x
ite
m
s
for the
first construct
(role
of SB
A)
and
si
x i
t
e
m
s
fo
r t
h
e sec
o
nd
con
s
t
r
uct
,
(i
m
port
a
nce o
f
SB
A). L
o
o
k
i
n
g at
t
h
e C
r
on
b
ach al
pha
val
u
e i
n
Tabl
e 9 and t
h
e t
w
o
-fac
t
or pat
t
e
r
n
m
a
tri
x
i
n
Tabl
e
10
, t
w
o i
t
em
s are del
e
t
e
d
fr
om
t
h
e con
s
t
r
uct
‘r
ol
e o
f
SB
A’
.
Tabl
e
9.
Val
u
e
s
o
f
C
r
o
nbac
h
’
s
Al
p
h
a
i
f
i
t
e
m
del
e
t
e
d
an
d
O
v
eral
l
C
r
o
nbac
h
’s
Al
pha
f
o
r
t
h
e Sc
h
ool
Im
provem
e
nt
C
onst
r
uct
s
School Im
p
r
ovem
e
nt Constr
ucts
I
t
em
Cr
onbach’
s
Alpha if
ite
m
delet
e
d
Overall Cronbach’
s
Alpha Value
1.
Role of SBA
D32i
0.
801
0.
779
D32ii 0.
716
D32iii 0.746
D32iv
0.
708
D32v
0.
744
D32vi
0.
747
2.
Im
por
tance of SB
A
D33i
0.
832
0.
867
D33ii 0.
812
D33iii 0.865
D33iv
0.
845
D33v
0.
864
D33vi
0.
843
Tabl
e
10
. T
w
o
-fact
o
r
pat
t
e
r
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
sh
owi
n
g t
h
e
fact
or l
o
a
d
i
n
gs
of
i
t
e
m
s
fo
r t
h
e
Sc
ho
ol
Im
provem
e
nt
C
onst
r
uct
s
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1 2
D33iv
0.
906
D33ii 0.
886
D33i 0.
829
D33iii 0.778
D33vi
0.
607
D32ii 0.
586
D32iii 0.568
D33v
0.
425
D32i
0.
848
D32vi
0.
622
D32iv
0.
498
D32v
0.
466
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
A Reliability and V
a
lidity of
an Instrume
nt t
o
Ev
alua
te the
School B
a
sed .... (Nor
Has
n
ida M
d
Ghaz
ali)
15
5
Th
ey are item
D32
ii)
(redu
ces pressu
re i
n
pu
b
lic ex
am
) and
item
D3
2
iii)
(im
p
ro
v
e
s literacy an
d nu
m
e
racy).
They
are
t
h
e
n
m
oved t
o
t
h
e s
econ
d
c
o
nst
r
uc
t
,
‘i
m
port
a
nce
of
SB
A
’
.
3.
4.
Relia
bility and Va
lidity
fo
r
the Pro
d
uct Ev
a
l
uatio
n
Tab
l
e 11
shows th
e v
a
lu
es
o
f
reliab
ility o
f
i
t
e
m
s
an
d
Tab
l
e 1
2
sh
ows th
e th
r
ee-factor pattern
m
a
trix
facto
r
an
alysis o
f
item
s
. Co
n
s
id
ering
th
e
reliab
ility a
n
d
v
a
lid
ity o
f
ite
m
s
,
all eig
h
t
ite
m
s
are m
a
in
tain
ed
. So,
all th
e eigh
t item
s
co
n
t
ribu
te t
o
p
r
od
u
c
t
ev
al
u
a
tio
n co
n
s
t
r
ucts. Fin
a
lly, Tab
l
e
1
3
sh
ows all th
e item
s
o
n
in
pu
t,
p
r
o
cess and
p
r
o
d
u
c
t ev
alu
a
tio
n
b
e
fore an
d
after
u
n
d
e
rgo
reliab
ility an
d
valid
ity p
r
o
cess. Ou
t
o
f
71
item
s
, 6
8
ite
m
s
are retain
ed.
Tabl
e
11
.
Val
u
es o
f
C
r
o
nbac
h
’s
Al
p
h
a i
f
i
t
e
m
del
e
t
e
d and
Ove
r
al
l
C
r
on
b
ach’s
Al
pha
f
o
r t
h
e
Pr
o
duct
Eval
uat
i
o
n C
o
nst
r
uct
s
Pr
oduct E
v
aluation Constr
ucts
I
t
em
Cr
onbach’
s
Alpha if
ite
m
delet
e
d
Overall Cronbach’
s
Alpha Value
1.
Student’s attitude toward
s SBA
E34i
0.667 0.761
E
34ii 0.
707
E34iii 0.658
2.
Student’
s
knowled
g
e in SBA
E
35i
0.
768
E35ii
3.
Motivational source towards
lear
ning
E
36i 0.
722
0.
722
E
36ii 0.
622
E36iii 0.560
Tabl
e
12
. T
h
re
e-fact
o
r
pat
t
e
r
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
sh
o
w
i
n
g t
h
e
fact
or l
o
a
d
i
n
gs
of
p
r
od
u
c
t
eval
uat
i
o
n
Ite
m
Co
m
ponent
1
2
3
E35ii
0.
921
E
35i
0.
742
0.
303
E
36i
0.
798
E36ii
0.
791
E36iii
0.
351
0.
685
E34iii
0.
855
E34ii
0.
844
E
34i
0.
641
Tabl
e
13
.
Al
l
i
t
e
m
s
on
i
n
put
,
pr
ocess
an
d
pr
od
uct
e
v
al
uat
i
o
n c
o
n
s
t
r
uct
s
Input evaluation
construct
Ite
m
s
before the validity and rel
i
ability
pr
ocess
Ite
m
s
after the vali
dity and reliabilit
y
pr
ocess
Materi
al and perso
n
al needs in SBA
sy
ste
m
A15,
A16,
A17
A15,
A16,
A17
Appr
opr
iateness of
per
s
onnel’
s qualif
i
cations
A18,
A19,
A20
A19,
A20
Suitability of physical infrastructure a
nd ICT
A21, A22, A
23
A21, A22, A23
P
r
ocess evaluat
i
on const
r
uct
Teacher
’s attitude:
belief
A1,
A2,
A5, A6
A1, A2,
A5, A7
Teacher
’s attitude:
f
eeling
A3, A4,
A7
A3, new ite
m
,
new
ite
m
Teacher
’s attitude:
readiness
A8
, A9,
A10, A11
A9, A10, A11
Teacher’s understa
nding o
n
SBA
A
12, A13, A14
A
12, A13, A14
Effect of SBA courses on i
m
proving skills of SBA
B26i
, B26ii, B26iii
, B26iv
B26i, B26ii, B26iii
, B26iv
I
H
T
on SBA
B27i,
B27ii,
B27iii
B27i,
B27ii,
B27iii
E
n
cour
agem
ent by ad
m
i
nistr
a
tion
B28i,
B28ii,
B28iii
B28ii,
B28iii
M
oder
a
tion pr
ocess
B29i,
B29ii,
B29iii
B29i,
B29ii,
B29iii
M
onitor
i
ng pr
ocess
B30i,
B30ii,
B30iii
B30i,
B30ii,
B30iii
Challenges
C1 – C12
C1 – C12
School I
m
prove
ment Const
r
uct
Role of SBA
D32i, D32ii, D32iii,
D32iv,
D32v,
D32vi
D32i,
D32iv,
D32v,
D32vi
Im
por
tance of SB
A
D33i, D33ii, D33iii,
D33iv,
D33v,
D33vi
D32ii, D32iii,
D33i, D33ii, D33iii,
D33iv,
D33v,
D33vi
Product evaluation
construc
t
Student’s attitude towards SBA
E34i, E
34ii, E34iii
E34i, E34ii, E34iii
Student’
s
knowled
g
e in SBA
E
35i,
E
35ii
E
35i,
E
35ii
M
o
tivational sour
ce towar
d
s lear
ning
E
36i
, E36ii, E36iii
E36i, E36ii, E36iii
TOTA
L
IT
EMS
7
1
ite
m
s
6
8
ite
m
s
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
5,
No
. 2,
Ju
ne
2
0
1
6
:
14
8 – 1
5
7
15
6
3.
5.
Discussion
Assessm
en
t is a v
ital co
m
p
o
n
en
t in
edu
cation
.
Th
e interact
ion
betwee
n as
sessm
ent, curri
culum
and
i
n
st
ruct
i
o
n i
s
v
e
ry
i
m
port
a
nt
i
f
w
e
w
e
re t
o
i
m
prove t
h
e t
e
a
c
hi
n
g
a
n
d
l
ear
ni
n
g
pr
ocess
i
n
sch
o
o
l
[
24]
.
S
B
A i
s
o
n
e
o
f
th
e m
a
i
n
ele
m
en
ts th
at co
n
t
ribu
te to
th
is. Cu
rren
tly, th
e in
stru
m
e
n
t
to
ev
alu
a
te th
e i
m
p
l
e
m
en
tati
o
n
o
f
SBA esp
ecially in
Asian
coun
tries is still la
ck
ing
.
Th
eref
ore, th
e
p
s
ychometric p
r
op
erti
es o
f
an
instrumen
t
to
measure
t
h
e perception of
te
achers
t
o
war
d
s
SB
A
i
m
pl
em
ent
a
t
i
o
n
are
de
v
e
l
ope
d a
n
d ass
e
ssed.
Acc
o
rdi
n
g
t
o
[25
]
, presen
ting
th
e
v
a
lu
e
o
f
reliab
ility an
d
v
a
lid
ity o
f
a
qu
estion
n
a
ire is i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
so
th
at o
t
h
e
r research
ers
are co
nfid
en
t
with
th
e qu
ality o
f
th
e
d
a
ta they g
a
in
late
r. Sin
ce th
ere is
no
v
a
lid
ated in
stru
m
e
n
t
in
th
e
co
n
t
ext
o
f
th
is stud
y an
d
also
th
er
e is n
o
su
ch
in
stru
m
e
n
t
w
h
ich
su
its th
e o
b
j
ectiv
e o
f
th
is study, th
is in
str
u
men
t
h
a
s
to
b
e
d
e
v
e
loped
b
y
th
e research
er. Th
e in
stru
m
e
n
t
is
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
a
sed
on
literatu
re rev
i
ews and
p
a
st
in
str
u
m
e
n
t
s o
n
SBA
esp
ecially th
o
s
e in
A
s
ian
cou
n
t
r
i
es. I
n
th
is stu
d
y
, th
e v
a
lu
e of
Cr
onbach
A
l
ph
a is f
o
und
to be betwe
e
n
0.610 and 0.992. T
h
is is cons
idere
d
quite
acceptable as [20],[26] state
that the value has
to be
m
o
re t
h
an
0.
7
fo
r a t
e
st
t
o
be
i
n
t
e
rnal
l
y
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
nt
. I
n
a
ddi
t
i
on, t
h
e val
u
e
of
fact
o
r
l
o
a
d
i
ngs t
o
wa
r
d
s f
act
ors
are al
so
q
u
i
t
e
hi
g
h
,
he
nce
i
t
pr
ovi
des e
n
ou
g
h
i
n
fo
rm
ati
on
o
n
c
onst
r
uct
val
i
d
i
t
y
al
t
h
o
u
g
h
m
eani
n
g
f
ul
interpretations
by the
resea
r
cher are
also considere
d
.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
This is the study to provi
de a
useful fram
e
work
for eval
uation of
SBA in Malaysia. It
is accepte
d
that som
e
SBA com
pone
nts
will be aim
e
d pri
m
arily at
teach
ers, a
n
d the
pe
rception
by
pupils
m
a
ybe less easy
to ide
n
tify. Furt
herm
ore, t
h
e succes
s
of t
h
is propose
d
fram
ework is
depe
ndent upon
th
e
quality of t
h
e
eval
uat
i
o
ns u
n
d
ert
a
ken
.
I
n
or
der t
o
gai
n
a m
o
re m
ean
i
n
g
f
ul
form
at
i
v
e and
sum
m
at
i
v
e eval
uat
i
on,
perce
p
t
i
ons
from
differe
nt sam
p
les such
as the stude
n
ts, hea
d
t
eache
r
s
,
adm
i
nistration groups
a
n
d the m
i
nistry officers
are
greatly ne
eded.
If e
v
al
uative approac
h
es are
not
d
e
v
e
l
ope
d e
x
cessi
vel
y
, t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
r
el
at
i
ons
hi
p
be
t
w
een
facto
r
s
wh
ich
h
i
gh
ly con
t
ribu
ted
t
o
SBA i
m
p
l
e
m
en
tatio
n
will rem
a
in
elu
s
iv
e. Fu
rt
h
e
rm
o
r
e, in
v
e
sting
in the
profe
ssional developm
ent of
teachers that have little i
m
pa
ct on st
ude
nts’ devel
opm
en
t might not
really help
i
n
i
m
provi
ng
t
h
e
per
f
o
r
m
a
nce o
f
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
ACKNOWLE
DGE
M
ENTS
M
y
deepest
a
p
preci
at
i
o
n a
n
d
unl
i
m
it
ed t
h
a
n
kf
ul
l
n
ess
ad
dr
essed t
o
m
y
fam
i
ly
,
m
y
supe
rvi
s
or
, P
r
o
f
Dani
el
, m
y
col
l
e
gues
an
d al
l
s
t
affs
of
fac
u
l
t
y
.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Lembaga Pep
e
riksaan Malaysia, “Panduan
dan Pe
ratur
a
n PBS. Putrajay
a,” 2011. Availab
l
e
at:
http://www.scrib
d
.com/faridoo
i/d
/81532201-Panduan-Dan-Peratu
r
a
n-Pbs-2011.
(Accessed: 22 Nov
e
mber 2011).
[2]
Lembaga P
e
periksaan, “Pentaksiran Be
rasas
k
an Sekolah,”
2010. Availab
l
e at:
http:/
/bule
tinkp
m
.
blogspot.co
.
u
k
/2012/11 /pent
a
ksiran-ber
asask
a
n-sekolah-pbs.ht
m
l
(Accessed:
7
Novem
b
er 2011).
[3]
C. Noraini,
et al
., “Ideal vs Reality
:
Evid
ences
from
senior te
a
c
her exper
i
en
ce
s
on the M
a
la
y
s
ia S
B
A s
y
s
t
em
,
”
Proceed
ings of
the Mala
ysian
Educations De
a
n
Council
. UIA
M
, 23-25 Sep
t
e
m
ber. INSTED,
2013. Available
at:http://www.iium.edu.m
y
/med
c
2013/documents/ProsidingMEDC.pdf
(Accessed
:
8 October
2014
).
[4]
Lembaga Peper
i
ksaan, “Pandu
an Pengurusan PBS.
KPM,” 2012. Available
at: http
://www.moe.gov.m
y
/lp/files/pbs/bah
an/Buku%20Pan
duan%20Pengur
usan%20P
entaks
iran%20Ber
asaskan%20Sekolah
%20%28PBS
%29 %202012.p
d
f (Accessed:26
November 2013).
[5]
D. L. Stuffleb
eam, “The releva
n
ce of
the CIPP Evaluation Model
for Educational
Accountab
ility
,”
Annual M
eeting
of the American
Association of S
c
hool Administr
a
tors,
1971. Available at: http
://
eric.ed
.
gov/PDFS/ED062385 .pdf
(Accessed: 3 September 2012)
.
[6]
D.
L
.
Stuffle
b
ea
m,
“T
he
CIPP M
odel for Ev
aluation
,
” in Kellagha
n
,
T
and
Stufflebeam, D. L.,
Int
e
rnation
a
l
Handbook of
Ed
ucational Evalu
a
tion
, Dordrech
t: Kluwer
Academic Publishers,
pp. 31-62
, 2003
.
[7]
A. Armstrong & E. Ogren, “Evalu
ation Models and Strategies,”
Evaluation and Training and Se
rvices Australia
,
Melbourne, 198
6.
[8]
K.
Ha
ka
n & F.
Se
va
l,
“CIPP E
v
aluation Model
Scale: Develop
m
en
t
,
re
li
a
b
i
l
ity
a
nd va
li
di
ty
,”
Procedia and So
cia
l
and Beha
vioral
Scien
ces,
vol. 15
, pp
. 592-599
, 2
011.
[9]
G. Zhang,
et
al
., “Using the context, input, pro
cess and produc
t evalu
a
tion model (CIPP) as a comprehensiv
e
framework to guide the p
l
ann
i
ng, implementati
on
and assessment of service-
learning programs,”
Journal of Higher
Education
Outreach and
Engagement
, vo
l/issue:
15(4), pp
. 57-84
, 2011.
[10]
Y.
Azizi,
et al.
, “
S
ej
auhm
ana M
odel S
t
uf
flebe
a
m
(KIP
P)
boleh membantu dala
m Penilaian Program
Pembelajar
an,” 2010. Available
at: http://epr
in
ts
.utm.m
y
/
2256
/1/AziziYah
a
y
a
_Sejaumanakah_Mo
d
el
_Stufflebeam_%28 KIPP %29.pdf
(Accessed: 2
March 2012)
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
A Reliability and V
a
lidity of
an Instrume
nt t
o
Ev
alua
te the
School B
a
sed .... (Nor
Has
n
ida M
d
Ghaz
ali)
15
7
[11]
S. Isaac
& W
.
B. Micha
e
l
,
“
H
andbook in R
e
search
and
Evalu
a
tion:
A Coll
ect
ion of Princ
i
ple
s
, Methods,
an
d
Strategies Useful in the Planning
, De
sign and Evaluation of Studies in Educat
ion and the Behav
i
o
r
al Scien
ces,” 2
nd
edn. C
a
lifornia,
Ed
ITS Publisher
s
, 1982.
[12]
J. S
a
lm
iah, “
A
ccep
tanc
e tow
a
rds S
B
A am
ong agricu
ltur
a
l i
n
tegra
t
ed
living
skills te
ach
ers: cha
lleng
es in
im
plem
enting
a holistic assessment,
”
Journal of
Technica
l Educa
tion and Training (
J
TET)
,
vol/issue: 5(1), pp
. 44-
51, 2013
.
[13]
Y. Boon & M.
Shaharuddin, “Kepemimpinan Guru Besar
Dalam Pelaksanaan
Pentaksiran
Berasaskan Sekolah
(PBS) Di Sekolah Kebangsaan
Daerah Kot
a
Ti
nggi, Johor,”
Fakulti Pendid
i
kan
.
Universit
i
T
e
k
nologi Mal
a
y
s
ia,
2011. Availab
l
e at:http
://eprints
.
utm.m
y
/11929
/1/Kepem
impinan_Guru_Besar_Dalam_P
elaksan
aan_ Pen
t
aksir
a
n
_Berasaskan _Sekolah.pdf
(Accessed: 8 Mar
c
h 2
012).
[14]
Chan Y. F. & G
u
rnam K. S., “School-based Assessm
ent among ESL Teachers in Ma
lay
s
ian Seco
ndar
y
Schools,”
Journal of the M
a
laysian
Education Deans’ Coun
cil
, vol. 9
,
pp
. 1-
18, 2012
.
[15]
S. A. Lukman
& A. A. Uwadiegwu, “S
B
A
as a
n
innovation in
Nigerian ed
u
cational s
y
stem:
Th
e Implementatio
n
Challeng
es,”
Kn
owledge Review
, vol/issue: 25(1)
, 2012.
[16]
K. Koh & R. L
.
Vela
y
u
th
am
, “
I
m
p
roving teach
e
r
s’ assessm
ent litera
c
y
in Sing
ap
ore schools,” 20
09. Avail
a
bl
e at
:
http://www.nie.edu.sg/nie_
c
ma/att
achments/topic/14e8a745eaKV/NIE _res
earch_
b
rief_09_002.pd
f (Accessed: 12
November 2013).
[17]
L. Cheng,
et al.
, “Impact and consequences of
SBA:
students’ and parents’
views of SB
A i
n
Hong
Kong,”
Language Testin
g
, vol/issue: 28(
2), pp
. 221-250
,
2011.
[18]
A. N. Oppenheim, “Que
stionnaire Design, Inter
v
iewi
ng and Attitude Measurement,
” London
, Pinter Publishers
,
1996.
[19]
L. Coh
e
n,
et al.
,
“
R
es
earch M
e
th
ods
in Edu
c
a
tion
,
”
6
th
edn.
Londo
n, Routledge, 20
07.
[20]
D. Muijs, “Doing Quantitative R
e
search
in
Edu
c
a
tion with
SPSS,” London, SAGE
Publications Ltd
,
2011
.
[21]
S
.
L. J
acks
o
n
,
“
R
es
earch M
e
tho
d
s
and S
t
atis
ti
cs
, A
Critical Thinking
Approach
,”
USA, Thomson Wadsworth,
2003.
[22]
J. W. Creswell,
“Education
a
l Research: p
l
anning
, conduc
ting and
evalu
a
ting qu
an
titative
and quali
tativ
e research
,”
New Jersey
, Pearson Education
,
Inc., 2002.
[23]
J.
Pa
lla
nt,
“SPS
S Surviva
l
Ma
nua
l: A ste
p
by
ste
p
guide
to da
ta
a
n
a
l
y
s
is using SPSS
for Windo
ws,
”
3
rd
e
d
.
N
e
w
South Wales, Allen
and
Unwin, 2007.
[24]
S. Young & C. Giebelh
a
us, “Formative
Assessment and Its Uses for Improvi
ng Student Achievement,”
Education
Data Manag
e
ment Solutions, STI
.
2005.
Availab
l
e at: www.cboh
m.com/news/S
TI/STI_White_Paper
.pdf (Accessed
Nov 2011).
[25]
M. Miller, “RE
S
600: Graduat
e
Resear
ch Meth
ods: Reli
ab
il
it
y
and Vali
dit
y
,”
Western Intern
ational
Univers
i
t
y
,
2012. Avai
lab
l
e
at:
http
://m
ich
ael
jm
illerphd
.com
/r
es
500_lectureno
tes /R
eli
a
bil
i
t
y
_and_Validit
y
.
pdf.
[26]
J. O. Nunnally
,
“
P
sy
c
hometric th
eor
y
,” N
e
w
York, McGraw-Hill, 1978.
BIOGR
AP
H
Y
O
F
AUTH
O
R
Nor Has
n
ida M
d
Ghaza
li
is
a s
e
n
i
or le
ctur
er
at F
a
cult
y o
f
Edu
cat
i
on and Hum
a
n
Developm
ent,
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idr
i
s, Tanjong Malim, Pera
k, Malaysia. She completed Degree in
Mathematics Education from University
K
e
bangsaan Malay
s
ia in 1998; Master in
Mathematics Education from University
Ke
b
a
ngsaan Malay
s
ia in 2010 an
d Doctor of
Philosoph
y
in
Assessm
e
nt and Evalu
a
tion
in
Education from
University
of
Southampton,
United Kingdom
in 2015
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.