Instrument Validity and Reliability

b. Construct Validity Construct validity is concerned with whether the test is line with the theory of learning strategies toward reading what it means to know the language that is being measured. Construct Validity is concerned with whether the test is actually in line with the theory of what it means to know the language Shohamy, 1985: 74. In this research, the researcher formulated table of specification. So every test items could be matched with the goal and the materials had been taught. Regarding the construct validity, it measures whether the construction had already in line with the objective of the learning Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 251. To know whether the test is good reflection of the knowledge which the teacher wants the students to know, the researcher compared the items of the test with table of specification. If the table represents the material that the researcher wants to test, then it is valid from that point of view. A table of specification is an instrument that helps the test constructor planned the test see Appendix 2. Table 2. Table of Specification of Data Collecting Instrument No. Objectives No. of Items Percentages Question Number 1. Determining the Main Idea 8 16 9, 16, 21, 33, 36, 41, 44, 47 2. Identifying Specific Information 12 24 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24, 27, 30 3. Inference 8 16 4, 22, 26, 31, 39, 45, 46, 48 4. Reference 11 22 3, 8, 13, 18, 25, 28, 34, 37, 38, 42, 50 5. Vocabulary 11 22 5, 7, 11, 14, 19, 29, 32, 35, 40, 43, 49 Total 50 100 50 Basically, the construct and content validity are overlap. It is a representative of the material from the subject. In line with Nuttal 1985 the relation validity of instrument refers to construct validity in which the question represents five reading skills, they are determining the main idea, identifying specific information, inference, reference, and vocabulary. Skills of reading in the test are a part of the construct validity and the item numbers are the part of the content validity. Besides the construct validity, the researcher used inter-rater analysis. The researcher used 4 inter-raters to make the reading test more valid. They are Jonatan Eko S. Budi, S.Pd., Drs. Muaddin Mubarok, Imelda Susan, S.Pd., and Nasirwan, S.Pd. They are English teachers at SMAN 14 Bandar Lampung. They were at least 7 years teaching experience. Table 3. Inter-rater Judgment No. Item Number Skill of Reading Inter-rater Judgment Total Percentage R1 R2 R3 R4 1. 9 16 21 33 36 41 44 47 Determining the Main Idea 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 100 75 75 100 75 75 75 100 2. 1 2 6 10 12 15 17 20 23 24 27 30 Identifying Specific Information 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 100 75 100 75 75 100 75 100 100 100 50 100 3. 4 22 26 31 39 45 46 48 Inference 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 100 100 75 75 75 100 50 75 4. 3 8 13 18 25 28 34 37 38 42 50 Reference 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 100 100 50 100 5. 5 7 11 14 19 29 32 35 40 43 49 Vocabulary 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 100 3.5.2. Reliability 1. Reliability of Questionnaire Since the LLSQ was a questionnaire for language learning strategies that had been developed using a Likert scale, a Cronbach ’s Alpha was used to measure the internal consistency of the items of the questionnaire. The reliability of the LLSQ was determined for each individual category of language learning strategy. With 79 participants from an Indonesian university, the Cronbach ’s Alpha of sub-scales of the LLSQ was 0.89, 0.82, and 0.75 for metacognitive, deep-level, and surface- level categories respectively. To find whether the test was reliable or not for the first grade students of SMAN 14 Bandar Lampung, the researcher used Cronbach ’s Alpha. The alpha ranges between 0 and 1. The higher alpha, the more reliable the items of the questionnaire will be Setiyadi, 2006:167. Explanation: r = reliability n = the number of item ∑σi 2 = total variance of all items σi 2 = the total variance To find out the variance, the researcher uses the formula as follow: σ = Explanation: σ = variance ∑X 2 = the total square of the number of data ∑X 2 = square of the total number of data N = the number of data And for knowing the classification of reliability are as follows: a. Between 0.800 to 1.00 = very high reliability b. Between 0.600 to 0.800 = high reliability c. Between 0.400 to 0.600 = moderate reliability d. Between 0.200 to 0.400 = low reliability e. Between 0.000 to 0.200 = very low reliability ∑X 2 - ∑X 2 N N n n - 1 r = 1 - ∑σi 2 σi 2 2. Reliability of Reading Test Reliability refers to whether the test is consistent in its score and gives us an indication of how accurate the test score are Shohamy, 1985: 70. A test is would be reliable if the score gained by the examiners is constant whenever and by whomever the test is conducted. The reliability of the reading comprehension test is measured based on Pearson Product Moment which examines the correlation coefficient of reliability between odd and even number reliability of the half test. The formula can be seen as follows: r xy = √ Explanation: r xy = coefficient reliability between odd and even number x = odd number y = even number ∑x 2 = total score of odd number ∑y 2 = total score of even number ∑xy = total score of odd and even number After the reliability of the half test is calculated, the researcher uses Spearman Brown’s Prophecy formula to measure the reliability of the test as a whole as follows: Explanation: r k = the reliability of the whole test r xy = the reliability of half test Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 247 r k = 2 r xy 1 + r xy The criteria of the reliability are: 0.90 – 1.00 = high 0.50 – 0.89 = moderate 0.00 – 0.49 = low 3.5.2. Scoring System The researcher used Arikunto’s formula in scoring the students’ result of the test. The higher score would be 100 S = x 100 Explanation: S: Score of the test R: Right answer N: Total of the items

3.6. Research Procedures

In doing this research, the researcher used these following procedures: 3.6.1. Determining the Population of the Research There were ten classes with 30 students each class of first grade at SMAN 14 Bandar Lampung in academic year 20142015. In determining the sample, the researcher used purposive sampling. The researcher chose the sample based on which class would be appropriate for the study. The data from a purposive sample was considered to represent all of the first grade Senior High School students in Bandar Lampung. 3.6.2. Conducting the Questionnaire There was one questionnaire given to the learners. The questionnaire was given to learners in an attempt to get data about the learning strategies used by learners in reading, whether they use cognitive, metacognitive, or social strategy. The questionnaire of this research was LLSQ. There were 20 statements related to learning reading skill. The items were administered to measure students learning strategies chosen. The items of the LLSQ questionnaire were in the form of limited statements which have range 1 to 5, explaining from never to always. 3.6.3. Analyzing the Data After distributing questionnaire tests, the researcher analyzed the answers of the tests. In analyzing the data, the researcher used One-Way Anova. Setiyadi 2006, stated that One-Way Anova can be used to compare the mean of three data in the same time. One-Way Anova is used to compare three data or more from the same sample. The mean of each learning strategy was compared with the mean of the score of students’ reading test, whether they use cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies in order to find out the main correlation of learning strategies were statistically significant. Therefore, the researcher repeated the measurement for three times. Then, the researcher identified which learning strategies in learning English reading comprehension used by the learners. 3.6.4. Making a Report and Discussion of Findings After having gained all the data, the researcher made a report and discussion on findings of which learning strategies were used by the students in learning English reading comprehension.

3.7. Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, the researcher used One-Way Anova. Setiyadi 2006: 177 states that One-Way Anova can be used to compare the mean of three or more data at the same time. One-Way Anova is used to compare the three sets of data or more and the third data derived from the same sample. There are three kinds of learning strategies; cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies. The mean of those three kinds of strategies were compared to the students’ reading comprehension in order to determine whether each correlation and the interaction correlation were statistically significant. Furthermore, from the questionnaire test, the researcher got three kinds of data, the learners which use cognitive strategy, metacognitive strategy, and social strategy in learning reading. Then, from the tryout reading test, the researcher got the students’ reading comprehension. The learners were classified into those three kinds of learning strategies in reading based on their highest score of questionnaire answers and the comprehension of the students were got by students’ score of tryout test. After that, the researcher compared the means of those three kinds of strategies to the students’ reading comprehension. To determine whether each main correlation and the interaction correlation are statistically significant, the researcher compared the p-value for each term to the significance level to assess the hypothesis. A significance level of 0.05 worked well. If the p-value is larger than the significant level selected, the correlation is not statistically significant, but if the p-value is less than or equal to the significant level selected, the correlation for the term is statistically significant.

3.8. Hypothesis Testing

To conclude a possible correlation of students’ learning strategies to their reading comprehension, the researcher used the criteria of the hypothesis acceptance. The hypothesis was analyzed by using One-Way Anova of SPSS for Windows ver. 16.0. The writer used the level of significance 0.05 in which the hypothesis was approved if sign p. It meant that if the p-value was less than or equal to the significant level selected, the effect for the term was statistically significant Setiyadi, 2006. To determine whether the first hypothesis was accepted or rejected, the researcher used following criteria: H 1 = p value p table H = p value p table The criteria presented above actually means that: H 1 : There is a correlation of students’ language learning strategies towards their reading comprehension. We can accept this hypothesis if p value is higher than p table. H : There is no correlation of students’ language learning strategies towards their reading comprehension. We can accept this hypothesis if p value is lower than p table.