Eksplorasi Pengalaman Tester dan Implikasinya pada  Pengembangan Tes Kognitif AJT

Aisha Sekar Lazuardini Rachmanie; Wahyu Widhiarso

doi:10.22146/gamajop.94172

Eksplorasi Pengalaman Tester dan Implikasinya pada Pengembangan Tes Kognitif AJT

Aisha Sekar Lazuardini Rachmanie, Wahyu Widhiarso

(Submitted 18 February 2024)

(Published 25 October 2024)

Abstract

Tes Kognitif AJT yang dikembangkan oleh Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) merupakan alat asesmen psikologis inovatif yang dirancang khusus untuk mengevaluasi kemampuan kognitif anak-anak Indonesia berusia 5-18 tahun. Meskipun memiliki potensi yang signifikan, penerapan tes ini masih terbatas, sehingga perlu diperluas penggunaannya di berbagai konteks pendidikan dan klinis. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi efektivitas dan tantangan praktis dalam penggunaan Tes Kognitif AJT dari perspektif tester yang telah tersertifikasi, dengan menggunakan desain penelitian kualitatif untuk mendapatkan pemahaman yang mendalam. Data dikumpulkan melalui kuesioner dengan pertanyaan terbuka yang diisi oleh 14 tester AJT sehingga memungkinkan pemahaman yang lebih detail mengenai pengalaman dan penilaian mereka. Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Tes Kognitif AJT dipandang sebagai alat yang komprehensif dan relevan secara budaya untuk menilai kemampuan kognitif anak-anak Indonesia. Meskipun beberapa peserta mengalami kesulitan awal, terutama terkait dengan pelaksanaan tes, mayoritas berhasil mengatasi tantangan tersebut. Mereka menekankan kemampuan tes ini untuk memberikan analisis mendalam tentang fungsi kognitif dan mengungkap potensi laten anak-anak. Penelitian ini menegaskan pentingnya memperluas penggunaan Tes Kognitif AJT untuk meningkatkan asesmen kemampuan kognitif di Indonesia, serta menekankan perlunya pelatihan dan dukungan berkelanjutan bagi para tester.

Keywords

Tes Kognitif AJT; tester; impikasi Tes Kognitif AJT

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.22146/gamajop.94172

References

Almamari, K., & Tryanor, A. (2021). The role of general and specific cognitive abilities in predicting performance of three occupations: Evidence from bifactor models. Journal of Intelligence, 9(40), 1–19.https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9030040.

Azwar, S. (2016). Konstruksi tes kemampuan kognitif. Pustaka Pelajar.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2016). (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 19(6), 739–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588

Brookhart, S. M. (2019). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 4(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00022

Carroll, J. B. (2005). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 69–76). Guilford Press.

Chen, X., & Zhu, L. (2020). Cultural adaptation in psychological testing: The importance of validating tests for diverse populations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 51(6), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022120938423

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

DeMars, C. E. (2018). Test fatigue: Definitions, consequences, and measures to mitigate its effects. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42(3), 168-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621617730640

Ebel, R. L. (1979). Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.

Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assessment. John Wiley & Sons.

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1997). A cross-battery approach to assessing and interpreting cognitive abilities: Narrowing the gap between practice and cognitive science. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 314–325). Guilford Press.

Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. O. (2000). The Wechsler intelligence scales and CHC theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Allyn & Bacon.

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732.

Furnham, A., & Horne, G. (2021). Myths and misconceptions about intelligence: A study of 35 myths. Personality and Individual Differences, 181(December 2020), 111014.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111014.

Goldstein, S., Princiotta, D., & Naglieri, J. A. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of intelligence. Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0.

Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136–182). Guilford Press.

Mather, N., & Wendling, B. J. (2012). Essentials of dyslexia assessment and intervention. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Allyn & Bacon.

McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 103-124). The Guilford Press.

Nguyen, T., Nguyen, M., & Pham, H. (2021). Improving test-taking motivation and performance through adaptive test formats. Educational Psychology, 41(5), 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.1897264

Ortiz, S. O. (2015). CHC theory of intelligence. In S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary theory, historical perspective, and current concepts (pp. 209–227). Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-015.

Ortiz, S. O., Ochoa, S. H., & Dynda, A. M. (2019). Testing with culturally diverse individuals: Models for sensitivity and adaptation. Contemporary School Psychology, 23(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-0201-7

Pan, X., Lin, Y., & He, C. (2016). A review of cognitive models in human reliability analysis. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 33(7), 1299-1316.https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2111.

Papageorgiou, K. A., Denovan, A., & Dagnall, N. (2022). The impact of cultural context on cognitive testing: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 34(3), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2022243

Peker, E., & Mirici, İ. H. (2021). Cognitive assessment and educational intervention strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 108, 101801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101801

Ripà, M. (2012). Identifying gifted children and dyslexia early diagnosis: Risk of cheating on IQ tests. May.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233911336.

Rohmah, U. (2011). Tes intelegensi dan pemanfaatannya dalam dunia pendidikan. Cendekia: Journal of education and society, 9, 125–139.https://doi.org/10.21154/cendekia.v9i1.869.

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll model of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 99–130). Guilford Press.

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In S. N. Elliott, T. R. Kratochwill, J. C. Littlefield, & C. P. Travers (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 243-267). John Wiley & Sons.

Sternberg, R. J. (2020). The psychology of human intelligence: An integrative approach. Cambridge University Press.

Shettleworth, S. (2012). Modularity, comparative cognition and human uniqueness. Philosophical transactions of the royal society b: biological sciences, 367(1603), 2794–2802.https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0211

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. The american psychologist, 59(5), 325–338.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.5.325

Tan, C. M., Goh, S. C., & Lim, L. H. (2020). Cultural adaptation of psychological tests: An Asian perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 370-381. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12384

Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004

Watkins, M. W., Canivez, G. L., Dombrowski, S. C., McGill, R. J., Pritchard, A. E., Holingue, C. B., & Jacobson, L. A. (2022). Long-term stability of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-fifth edition scores in a clinical sample. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 11(3), 422-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2021.1875827

Widhiarso, W. (2021a, August 17). Kelebihan AJT CogTest – UPAP Psikologi UGM. Unit Pengembangan Alat Ukur Psikodiagnostika (UPAP). Retrieved July 29, 2022, fromhttps://upap.psikologi.ugm.ac.id/ajt/kelebihan-ajt-cogtest/

Widhiarso, W. (2021b, August 17). Landasan teoretis AJT CogTest – UPAP Psikologi UGM. Unit Pengembangan Alat Psikodiagnostika. Retrieved July 29, 2021, fromhttps://upap.psikologi.ugm.ac.id/ajt/landasan-teoretis-ajt-cogtest/

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.