Performance assessment instrument to assess the senior high students’ psychomotor

for the salt hydrolysis material

Nahadi, Harry Firman, and Erlis Yulina

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1708, 040005 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4941155

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4941155
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1708/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Performance Assessment Instrument to Assess The Senior
High Students’ Psychomotor for The Salt Hydrolysis
Material
Nahadi*, Harry Firman, Erlis Yulina

Departemen Pendidikan Kimia, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi no 229, Bandung 40154,
Indonesia

*Corresponding author: nahadi@upi.edu

Abstract. The purposes of this study were to develop a performance assessment instrument for assessing the competence
of psychomotor high school students on salt hydrolysis concepts. The design used in this study was the Research &
Development which consists of three phases: development, testing and application of instruments. Subjects in this study
were high school students in class XI science, which amounts to 93 students. In the development phase, seven validators
validated 17 tasks instrument. In the test phase, we divided 19 students into three-part different times to conduct
performance test in salt hydrolysis lab work and observed by six raters. The first, the second, and the third groups
recpectively consist of five, six, and eight students. In the application phase, two raters observed the performance of 74
students in the salt hydrolysis lab work in several times. The results showed that 16 of 17 tasks of performance
assessment instrument developed can be stated to be valid with CVR value of 1,00 and 0,714. While, the rest was not
valid with CVR value was 0.429, below the critical value (0.622). In the test phase, reliability value of instrument
obtained were 0,951 for the five-student group, 0,806 for the six-student group and 0,743 for the eight-student group.
From the interviews, teachers strongly agree with the performance instrument developed. They stated that the instrument
was feasible to use for maximum number of students were six in a single observation.

INTRODUCTION
Chemistry is one of the natural sciences containing concepts and theories from a phenomenon obtained by a
scientific process. Chemistry is obtained and developed based on the experiment looking for the answers of what,
why and how a natural phenomenon related to the substance composition, structure and characteristic. The
chemistry learning aims to get the understanding of the chemical facts and concepts, the capability of knowing and
solving problems, the skills to conduct the experiment in the laboratory as well as to have the scientific attitude
which can be developed in daily life. Based on the goals, so clearly the chemical learning does not only develop the
cognitive competency merely, but also includes the attitude competency and psychomotor development1.
The implementation of learning activity is related to the assessment activity, because by the assessment activity,
the teachers can see how far the students understand about the material discussed in the learning process. Based on
the obligation of 2013 curriculum, the assessment containing the assessment of process and learning outcome must
be done comprehensively and authentically. The comprehensive assessment means that the assessment given is
thoroughly including the fields of knowledge, skills and attitude. The learning process assessment uses the authentic
approach assessing the students’ readiness, learning process and outcomes thoroughly. While, the learning outcome
assessment essentially aims to assess the learning success conducted as well as assess the students’ success in
mastering the competency which has been arranged. The performance assessment is considered as the most
authentic type of assessment compared to the other type of authentic assessments because it can directly assess the
students’ competency correctly based on certain indicators.

Proceedings of International Seminar on Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education (MSCEIS 2015)
AIP Conf. Proc. 1708, 040005-1–040005-7; doi: 10.1063/1.4941155
© 2016 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1355-9/$30.00

040005-1
 Some researches related to the performance assessment in chemistry subject reveal that the instrument
development of performance assessment is definitely required to assess the students’ mitotic skill so that the
assessment is more authentic. University students can’t explain the observation outcomes in the laboratory and be
less able to rationalize it2. Some researchers conduct the performance instrument development in the chemical
laboratory, generally by the instrument design process, content validation and revision outcome instrument
trial3,4,1,5,6. The result is that the developed performance assessment instruments have very good validity and
reliability, meaning that the instruments developed can assess the students’ laboratory skill correctly. More research
in developing the performance assessment instrument makes the researchers’ motivation also to conduct the research
in the field, based on the curriculum obligation.
In a competency-based curriculum, the learning chemistry assessment has been directed to a comprehensive
assessment, including three aspects, namely the cognitive, affective and psychomotor assessments. Based on
experience in the field on the study results by interviews with teachers and supervisors of chemical subjects in
Sukabumi city, it turns out that the psychomotor aspects have received less attention in the assessment process and
teachers focus more on the cognitive assessment. This is due to a lack of understanding about the instruments of
(psychomotor) skills, lack of facilities, and lack of teachers’ motivation. Therefore, it is necessary for an assessment
instrument development which can better assess psychomotor and precisely measures the indicators expected within
the learning competence. A proper assessment to assess the students’ psychomotor competence is using performance
assessment instrument, including task and rubric based on its basic competence.
Based on 2013 curriculum structure of high school chemistry subject, there are many materials in 11th and 12th
classes allowing the developing of performance assessment instrument in practical activities. The research focuses
on developing the performance assessment instrument in 11th class for one of the materials in 11th class, which is
essential and interesting to study, namely salt hydrolysis because it requires the students to have psychomotor
competency done individually and contains basic skill stages, which should be possessed by the students in
chemistry lab. Besides, the research also has not yet found the performance instrument development of salt
hydrolysis in previous studies.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research subjects were the 11th SCIENCE class students as many 93 students. At the trial stage, 19 students
are divided into three groups. The first group consists of five students, the second one consists of six students and
third one consists of eight students which each is observed by six observers8. The other 76 students are involved in
the application stage which the performance test is conducted in certain different group times.
The research design used consists of three stages, namely : (1) the instrument development stage, (2) the limited
trial stage, (3) the application stage. The research instrument which will be used is the validity test sheet used in the
development stage, task and assessment rubric of the developed instrument, the observation sheet, and interview
guideline sheet.
At the instrument development stage, the instrument which has been designed is validated by seven experts. The
validation result is analyzed using Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and compared to the critical value7. According to
Lawshe to set the CVR value is using the formula:

, which ne is the number of approved experts while N is the number of overall experts8. At the
trial stage, the instrument from the content validation results will be tested to five students, and is observed by six
observer teachers, then to six people and eight people by the same six observers. From the practical test result, it is
analyzed by determining the reliability using SPSS 20 by setting its Cronbach Alpha coefficient. The analysis result
instrument is used in the application.
To know the instrument feasibility developed, so it must consider the suitability of the number of the indicator
item assessed, the time and number of students observed. The feasibility is also strengthened by the interview results
to the observers to know the maximal number of the students who can be observed in once observation.

040005-2
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the analysis results to the Main Competency and Basic Competency to the practical material of salt
hydrolysis, the research developed an instrument with five indicators and 17 tasks with its 5-scale rubric.
The instrument validation result by seven valuators then is processed and analyzed using Content Validity Ratio
(CVR) from Lawshe. Based on the table of Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio with significance of
0,05 one tail for seven valuators, the critical value is 0,622. Meaning that if the CVR value is more than 0,622 so it
can be stated to be valid, while if it is less than 0,622 so it is not stated to be valid.
The trial process was conducted on 29 April 2014, and the students conducted the practicum for 45 minutes
starting from the preparation stage until creating the practicum result conclusion. The practicum table design at this
trial stage was made with the table position of the letter L while the tool and material tables are between the students
and observers or raters which facing each other, making it easier for them to make observations and assessments.
Each observer or rater has been equipped with task and rubric as the assessment guide and observation sheets which
have been prepared. While the observed students were given some sort of student worksheets, which are the general
guidelines of work steps before doing the practical work.
At Table 2, it is seen that each indicator is in the very high category, because the reliability value is above the
value of 0.8 according to the standard value for the category. The fifth indicator that is processing the observation
result data has the highest reliability value. To clarify the reliability value description of each task in performance
test instrument, it is presented Figure. 1, the reliability value of each indicator in five student groups.
In the second group with the number of students of six people observed with the same six-raters, the reliability
determination results are shown in Table. 3.
At Table. 3, it is seen that four indicators are at very a high category, while the fourth indicator which is to
maintain safety has high category because the reliability value is 0.6 until 0.8 according to the standard value for the
category. To clarify the reliability value description of each task in the performance test instrument, it is presented in
Figure. 2.

TABLE. 1 Indicator and Task Draft in Performance Assessment Instrument to Assess the senior High Students’
Psychomotor Competency for Salt Hydrolysis Material
No Indicator Task
1 Preparing the 1.1 Using practicum equipments
practicum 1.2 Preparing the practicum tools and materials which will be used.
1.3 Preparing the dried test tube
1.4 Creating observation table (s)
2 Making the saline 2.1 Removing the solid salt into the test tube
solution 2.2 Removing the aqueous into the test tube
2.3 Estimating 5 ml aqueous using test tube
2.4 Dissolving the solid salt
3 Setting pH of saline 3.1 Dipping the universal indicator into the saline solution
solution 3.2 Comparing the indicator color with standard color
3.3 Writing the observation result data
3.4 Testing the following pH of saline solutions
4 Maintain the work 4.1 Cleaning the tools which have been used
safety 4.2 Disposing the practical substances or materials which have been used
4.3 Re-arranging the tools and materials which have been used
5 Processing the 5.1 Interpreting the observation result data
observation result data 5.2 Creating a conclusion

040005-3
 TABLE. 2 The Calculation Result of Reliability Value of Each Indicator in the Five-Student Group
No Indicator Reliability value Category
1 Preparing the practicum 0,827 Very High
2 Making the saline solution 0,882 Very High
3 Setting the pH of saline solution 0,886 Very High
4 Maintain the work safety 0,917 Very High
5 Processing the observation result data 0,973 Very High

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0
Indikator 1 Indikator 2 Indikator 3 Indikator 4 Indikator 5

Figure.1 The reliability value of each indicator in the five-student group

TABLE. 3 The Calculation Results of Reliability value of Each Indicator in Five-Student Group
No Indicator Reliability value Category
1 Preparing the practicum 0,861 Very high
2 Making the saline solution 0,833 Very high
3 Setting the pH of saline solution 0,932 Very high
4 Maintain the work safety 0,752 High
5 Processing the observation result data 0,957 Very high

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0
Indikator 1 Indikator 2 Indikator 3 Indikator 4 Indikator 5

Figure. 2 The reliability value of each indicator in the six-student group

040005-4
 In Figure 2, it is clearly seen that the reliability values in these six groups are a bit little different than in a group
of five people, particularly on the fourth indicator having a high category, meaning that there is consistency decrease
between the six raters compared to the first group. Based on the results of reliability of the two groups, it shows that
the performance assessment instrument developed was reliable and showed to be able to assess the students’
psychomotor competence.
In the third group with the number of students which is eight people observed by the same six raters, the
reliability determination results are shown in Table 4.
At Table. 4, it indicates that the two indicators namely, the third and fifth indicators are in the high category,
while the three other indicators have a middle category because the reliability values are between 0.4 and 0.6
according to the standard value for the category. To clarify the reliability value, description of each task in
performance test instrument was presented in Figure.3.

TABLE. 4 The Calculation Results of Reliability Value of Each Indicator in the Eight-student Group
No Indicator Reliability Values Category
1 Preparing the practicum 0,577 Middle
2 Making the saline solution 0,517 Middle
3 Setting the pH of saline solution 0,781 High
4 Maintain the work safety 0,432 Middle
5 Processing the observation result data 0,777 High

1
0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0
Indikator 1 Indikator 2 Indikator 3 Indikator 4 Indikator 5

FIGURE. 3 The reliability value of each indicator in the eight-people group

In Figure 3, it shows that the reliability value differs quite significantly and has a category under both previous
groups. This shows consistency decrease between six raters in all indicators, especially the first, second and fourth
indicators. If the reliability is determined based on the average valuation of the total score, then the result can be
seen in the following Table 5.
Out of the three groups, the eight-people group has the smallest reliability value of the category within the group
of five and six-people. Based on the Table. 5, the three groups can show that the performance assessment instrument
developed is reliable, although there are differences in the category in the third group and feasible through the use in
the application stage. For more details, it is shown in Figure 4.

040005-5
 TABLE .5 The Reliability Values of Total Average Score from Three Groups
Group Reliability Value Category
Five people 0,951 Very high
Six people 0,806 Very high
Eight people 0,743 High

FIGURE 4 . The Reliability Value of The Three Groups Based on Total Average Score

The instrument feasibility made can be determined by how these instruments can be used to observe a number of
students optimally. In this case, it is required to examine how the ideal number of students can be observed
simultaneously so that all tasks can be assessed optimally. Here is shown a comparison of reliability value among
the three groups for each indicator and total.

0,8

0,6 kel 1
kel 2
0,4
kel 3
0,2

0
Indikator 1 Indikator 2 Indikator 3 Indikator 4 Indikator 5 Total

Figure. 5 The Reliability Value Comparison Between Three Groups Based on average scores in each indicator and
Total

Based on the Figure. 5, it indicates that the group of eight people has the lowest reliability value than other
groups both of the average values of each indicator as well as the average total value task of each student. Therefore,
the observations on the eight-people group showed the lack of consistency of the raters to give assessment and lack
of inter-rater agreement in their assessments.

040005-6
 In the group of five and six-people, the raters’ assessment results look very consistent, especially in groups of
five-people. The coefficient results show that the instrument is feasible if it is used in groups of five and the group of
six, and is not visible when it is used on the number of students more than six people.
The interview results show that there are three raters stating that the number of ideal students which can be
observed optimally at once observation is six students, two raters stating that it is for five students and one rater
stating that it is for seven students. The three raters stating that it is for six students say that based on the observation
results from the trial of a three-student group, the number of six students gives the easiness for the raters to give the
appropriate assessment. While for the five-student group, it is very easy while, if it is more than six students, then it
will be rather difficult to observe some tasks because the practicum condition will give more chaos because of too
many students.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the research results and discussion, it can be concluded that 16 of 17 tasks of performance assessment
instrument developed can be stated to be valid with CVR value of 1,00 and 0,714. While, there is one task which is
stated to be not valid because it has CVR value under the critical value of 0,622 that is 0,429. The performance
assessment instrument developed had very high reliability with the alpha coefficient of the total average score
obtained by the students was 0,951 for the five-students group, 0,806 for the six-students group and 0,743 for the
eight-students group. Based on the reliability value comparison from the three groups and interview, it shows that
the performance assessment instrument was feasible or very reliable to be used with maximal number of students
were six in a single observation.

REFERENCES
1. R. L. P. Sari, Pengembangan instrumen performance assessment sebagai bentuk penilaian berkarakter kimia.
(UNY Press, Yogyakarta, 2010), pp. 14-18.
2. J. L. She, Y. M. Ttsai, M. H. Chiu, H. J. Chen, The performance of Taiwans undergraduate in organic chemistry
laboratory. (Proceeding of The 2nd NICE Symposium, Taiwan, 2007), pp. 29-34.
3. A. Hofstein, Chem. Educ. 6, 74-79 (2004).
4. M. E. Fay, T. Grove, A. Bretz, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8, 212-219 (2007).
5. A. Sudrajat, A. Permanasari A. Zainul, Buchori, Jurnal Chemica. 12, 1-8 (2011).
6. A. N. Ugwu, J. Educ. Pract., 5, 175-185 (2014).
7. F. R. Wilson, W. Pan, D. A. Schumsky, Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev., 45 (15), 197-210 (2013).
8. C. H. Lawshe, Pers. Psychol. 28, 563-575 (1975).

040005-7