does not mean that the test constructed in this study was invalid. Further discussion on each evidences were discussed as follows:
1. The content-related evidence of validity content validity
This evidence refers to the content of the instrument. Bachman 1990 divides this type into two: content relevance and content coverage. Content
relevance means that the content of the test should be relevant to the purpose of the test. Content coverage means that the test should cover all or at least
adequately sample elements of the language intended to be tested. Based on the explanation above, the test constructed in this study had the
content-related evidence of validity. Reasons to come up with the conclusion are: the content of the test was relevant to the purpose of the test, which was to
measure the students’ mastery on the preposition of place at, in and on and the test covered all the forms and adequately sampled the meanings and uses of the
preposition of place at, in and on.
2. The criterion-related evidence of validity
This validity refers the relationship between the scores on a measuring instrument and an independent external variable criterion believed to measure
directly the behaviour or characteristics in question Ary et al 1974. Since the independent external variable criterion was not available in this
study, then it can be said that the evidence of criterion validity was not found.
3. The construct-related evidence of validity
Hughes 1989: 26 says about construct validity and its urgency to occur in a test as follow: “a test, part of a test, or a testing technique is said to have
construct validity if it can be demonstrated that it measures just the ability which it is supposed to measure. The word construct refers to any underlying ability or
trait which is hypothesized in a theory of language ability”. Another
expert Ary
et al 1974: 201 said that the term construct is used to
refer to something that is not itself directly measurable but which explains observable effects.
To show that the test constructed in this study has the evidence of this type of validity, as it proposed by Fraenkel Wallen 1993:145, three steps was
administered to obtain the evidence. Those steps are discussed as follows: a. The variable being measured is clearly defined
The variable or in this study, the element of language to be measured in this study was the grammatical competence of the first year students of the
English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The focus of this study was to measure their grammatical competence on the
preposition of place at, in and on. b. Formulate the hypothesis
The hypothesis then was proposed in this study. This study was intended to measure the students’ grammatical competence especially on the area of
preposition of place at, in and on. The students’ whose grammatical competence is low in this study, it means their mastery on the preposition of place at, in and
on score low in all part of the test. In the opposite, those whose grammatical
competence is high, score high in all parts of the test.
c. Test the hypothesis To know the students’ mastery on the preposition of place at, in and on,
the students were given a test. The test also functions as a means to prove that the proposed hypothesis was true. Previous discussion explained that the test had the
content validity. In other word, the test really was to measure just the ability which it was supposed to measure. For that reason, the test in this study can be
said to have the construct-related evidence of validity.
4. Face Validity
