accepted measure to verify the indicator of a construct. Predictive validity is measurement validity that relies on the occurrence of a future event or behavior that
is logically consistent to verify the indicator of a construct. iv. Construct Validity
Construct validity is for measures with multiple indicators. It address this question: if the measure is valid, do the various indicators operate in a consistent
manner? This measurement validity requires a definition with clearly specified conceptual boundaries. This validity covers two subtypes of validity, namely
convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is a type of measurement validity for multiple indicators based on the idea that indicators of
one construct will act alike or converge. Discriminant validity is a type of measurement validity for multiple indicators based on the idea that indicators of
different construct diverge.
b. Reliability of the Test
According to Richard C. Sprinthall, Gregory T. Schmutte, and Lee Sirois, reliability refers to the consistency with which a test or instrument produces result
1991: 34. They further highlight that the basic question addressed by reliability is whether a test given at one time will give the same result if given at another time
under the same conditions. Neuman 2011: 208 also argues that measurement reliability means that the numerical results an indicator produces do not vary
because of characteristics of the measurement process or measurement instrument PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
itself. To sum up, a test is called reliable when it is tested on a similar group in similar condition, the result remains the same.
Ary et al assumes that reliability concerns with how consistently a researcher measures whatever shehe measures 2002: 251. Moreover, they add
that the reliability won’t concern about the meaning and interpretation of the scores, for they are more associated with the theory of validity. A measuring instrument
can be reliable without being valid. Nevertheless, it cannot be valid unless it is first reliable. As an instance, a researcher decides to measure intelligence by determining
the circumference of the head. The measurements may be reliable consistent from time to time, yet this method will not be considered valid if the circumference of
the head does not correlate with any other criteria of intelligence nor is it predicted by any theory intelligence. Regarding this research, the instrument test that will
be conducted might be reliable, yet it cannot be valid unless the instrument correlates with the theory and function of preposition for and to or contribute the
functions of the prepositions for and to which have been applied in this research. In measuring the reliability of the test, the researcher uses one of the
methods, which is the split-half technique Sprinthall et al, 1991: 35. The split-half technique of reliability is one kind of internal-consistency reliability, in which a test
requires only a single administration of one form of a test Ary et al, 2002: 256. The test is split into two halves, and correlates the individual’s scores on the two
halves; the first half the odd-numbered items was labelled X and the second half even-numbered items was labelled Y. Thus, the researcher uses The Pearson
