Validity and reliability tests on generalized anxiety disorder diagnostic scale

  • Valensia Putri Adhyartasari 
    Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
    Indonesia
  • Christiana Hari Soetjiningsih
    Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
    Indonesia
  • Susana Prapunoto
    Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
    Indonesia

Abstract

Generalized anxiety disorder is one of the most common anxiety disorders in society. The purpose of this study is to develop a diagnostic scale for generalized anxiety disorder because there is no self-report diagnostic tool for generalized anxiety disorder based on DSM-V and ICD-10 criteria in Indonesia. The research uses quantitative research. Respondents in the field test consisted of 210 adult respondents aged 18-65 years, moderate or had experienced anxiety, and were Indonesian citizens. This study provides the results that the overall anxiety disorder diagnostic scale has gone through the internal validity and internal reliability test stages and obtained valid and reliable results so that this measuring instrument has described the suitability of the measuring instrument construct with the data. Based on testing the average processing time of 6 respondents, it was obtained an average of approximately 5 minutes (2 minutes 4 seconds to 5 minutes 21 seconds). Scoring for each item that supports or is in accordance with the symptoms (favorable), namely Yes = 1 and No = 0. The scoring for each item that does not support the symptoms is Yes = 0 and No = 1. This measuring instrument is declared to have good validity and reliability.
Keywords
  • Construct Validity
  • Diagnostic Scale
  • Generalized Anxiety Disorder
  • EFA
  • CFA
References
  1. Azwar, S. (2018). Penyusunan Skala Psikologi (2nd ed.). Pustaka Pelajar.
  2. Bafadal, A. . (2012). Interpretasi hubungan nilai loading faktor model pengukuran dan nilai rata-rata. Diakses November 2021. https://arifkamarbafadal.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/interpretasi-hubungan-nilai-loading-faktor-model-pengukuran-dan-nilai-rata-rata/
  3. Barlow, D. H., Durand, V. M., & Hofmann, S. G. (2016). Abnormal psychology: An integrative approach. Cengage learning.
  4. Bhugra, D., Tasman, A., Pathare, S., Priebe, S., Smith, S., Torous, J., Arbuckle, M. R., Langford, A., Alarcón, R. D., & Chiu, H. F. K. (2017). The WPA-lancet psychiatry commission on the future of psychiatry. The Lancet Psychiatry, 4(10), 775–818. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30333-4
  5. Budikayanti, A., Larasari, A., Malik, K., Syeban, Z., Indrawati, L. A., & Octaviana, F. (2019). Screening of generalized anxiety disorder in patients with epilepsy: Using a valid and reliable Indonesian version of generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7). Neurology Research International, 2019.
  6. Dang, H. (2020). Re: What do do with cases of cross-loading on Factor Analysis? https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-do-do-with-cases-of-cross-loading-on-Factor-Analysis/5efd7bbd6b9aab36ac600a0c/citation/download.
  7. Eabon, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2013). Understanding psychological testing and assessment. American Psychological Association.
  8. Evans, S. C., Roberts, M. C., Keeley, J. W., Blossom, J. B., Amaro, C. M., Garcia, A. M., Stough, C. O., Canter, K. S., Robles, R., & Reed, G. M. (2015). Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001
  9. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis . United Kingdom: Cengage Learning, EMEA.
  10. Hardiansyah, H., Putri, A. P., Wibisono, M. D., Utami, D. S., & Diana, D. (2020). Penyusunan alat ukur resiliensi akademik. Psikostudia: Jurnal Psikologi, 9(3), 185–194.
  11. Harm Research Institute. (n.d.). No Title. 2019. https://harmresearch.org/index.php/mini-international-neuropsychiatric-interview-mini/#Adult Versions of the MINI
  12. Iedliany, F., Fahmie, A., & Kusrini, E. (2018). Pengembangan dan validasi instrumen pengukuran efektivitas tim di usaha mikro kecil dan menengah (UMKM). Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi, 3(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v3i2.3014
  13. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2012). Pengukuran Psikologi: Prinsip, penerapan, dan isu. Jakarta: Salemba Humanika.
  14. Li, Y., Wen, Z., Hau, K.-T., Yuan, K.-H., & Peng, Y. (2020). Effects of cross-loadings on determining the number of factors to retain. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(6), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1745075
  15. Maslim, R. (2013). Diagnosis Gangguan Jiwa, Rujukan Ringkas PPDGJ-III dan DSM-V (Cetakan 2). PT. Nuh Jaya.
  16. Mindrila, D. (2010). Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society, 1(1), 60–66.
  17. Munir, S., & Takov, V. (2021). StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.
  18. Olthuis, J. V, Watt, M. C., Bailey, K., Hayden, J. A., & Stewart, S. H. (2016). Therapist‐supported Internet cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011565.pub2
  19. Perhimpunan Dokter Spesialis Kedokteran Jiwa Indonesia (PDSKJI). (2020). 5 Bulan Pandemi Covid di Indonesia. http://pdskji.org/home
  20. Peterson, C. H., Peterson, N. A., & Powell, K. G. (2017). Cognitive interviewing for item development: Validity evidence based on content and response processes. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 217–223.
  21. Sugiyono. (2019). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
  22. Supratiknya, A. (2014). Pengukuran psikologis. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.
  23. Supratiknya, A. (2016). Kuantifikasi validitas isi dalam asesmen psikologis. Lustrum Ke-4 Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Sanata Dharma.
  24. Taherdoost, H. (2019). What is the best response scale for survey and questionnaire design; review of different lengths of rating scale/attitude scale/Likert scale. Hamed Taherdoost, 1–10.
  25. Tse, E. T. Y., Lam, C. L. K., Wong, C. K. H., Chin, W. Y., Etz, R. S., Zyzanski, S. J., & Stange, K. C. (2020). Cultural adaptation and content validity of a Chinese translation of the ‘Person-Centered Primary Care Measure’: findings from cognitive debriefing. Family Medicine and Community Health, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.15.20154179
  26. Widhiarso, W. (2013). Estimasi reliabilitas pengukuran dalam pendekatan model persamaan struktural. Buletin Psikologi, 17(1).
  27. Willis, G. B. (2015). Analysis of the cognitive interview in questionnaire design. Oxford University Press.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 1440 times
PDF
: 43 times