International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
Validity and Reliability of Basic Needs Questionnaire Based on Choice Theory in Malaysia
Karen Wong Mei Sing University of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia. Email:
[email protected] Ahmad Jazimin Jusoh Department of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Education and Human Development, Sultan Idris Education University, 35900 Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia Corresponding Author Email:
[email protected]
Abstract The aim of this study is to measure both the validity and reliability of Basic Needs Questionaire based on Choice Theory. The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire with 85 items covering five subscales: love and belonging, power, fun, freedom, and survival. Five experts determined the validity of this questionnaire as a , measuring instrument indicating it had a high validity of 91%. Next, a total of 119 students from two schools were selected as a random sample to measure the reliability of this instrument. The data was analyzed using Cronbach Alpha and test-retest, which showed that only 47 items from 85 items instrument were significant. Overall, the Cronbach Alpha realiability coefficient is in good working order with the value of reliability .871. Keywords: validity, realibility, basic needs, Choice Theory, Cronbach Alpha
164
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
1. Introduction According to Choice Theory all human behavior, , is driven by attempts to satisfy basic needs (Glasser, 1985; 1998; 2001). Knowledge of which needs are not being met in an individuals’ life is important to understanding his/her behavior and determining interventions to create a needs-satisfying environment for this particular person. Glasser (1985; 1998; 2001) describes five basic needs that must be met for physiological and psychological health. The physiological need for survival represents the biological desires for food, water, shelter and reproduction, as well as safety and security. Humans also attempt to satisfy the four psychological needs of power, belonging, freedom, and fun. Power needs relate to status, dominance, respect, and achievement, which are the most difficult to satisfy. Belonging refers to the need to be with others, to feel cared for, and to be in cooperative relationships. Freedom, a need which often conflicts with power and to some extent belonging, is the desire what one wants to do and to be able to make choices. Finally, the need for fun is the desire to play, laugh, and seek enjoyment, and is hypothesized to be linked with the ability to learn (Glasser, 2001). Based on previous studies, Burns et al. (2006) built an instrument known as the Students Needs Survey (SNS) to measure the psychological and physiological basic needs of young adults as outlined in Choice Theory. The instrument consisted of 25 items, every 5 items measuring one of the basic needs of survival, love and belonging, power, freedom, and fun. Validity and reliability of this instrument was tested on students at three public schools. The results showed that these instruments have high validity and can effectively to measure the basic needs of the students. In addition, the reliability of the instrument was high, with an alpha value of 0.92, while the test-retest reliability also had an alpha value of 0.96. Overall, Burns et al. (2006), found that the SNS is a psychometric tool based on the philosophy of Choice Theory that is useful to evaluate students psychology needs, especially in schools. Teachers or individuals working in school settings can use SNS to identify the extent to which the needs of students are met individually or in groups. Lafond (2000) also conducted a study to assess the validity of an instrument that measures the basic requirements of Choice Theory: Choice Theory Basic Needs Scale (CTBNS). There were 9 items in the instrument and each of these items included five basic needs in Choice Theory. These items were then approved by experts in Reality Therapy. Lafond conducted a survey with a total of 265 respondents. Results showed that the CTBNS had low correlation between the items, clearly unauthorizing use. Clearly shows that CTBNS unauthorizing this instrument for use. Lafond concluded that the items in CTBNS needed to be restyled and re-scaled before assessing the needs of individuals. 165
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
The five basic needs are the core of an individual’s identity. By understanding the degree of importance that each individual has for these needs, counsellors and specialist can assist and support a client. This study was conducted to determine whether those measurement instruments SNS and CTBNS have psychometric qualities that enable them to be used in the context Malaysian culture. 1.1 Choice Theory Glasser (1998) states that Choice Theory provides explanations for most behaviors: we choose everything we do, including the misery we feel. In theory, other people cannot make us miserable or happy. All we can get from them or give to them is information. But by itself, information cannot make us do or feel anything, can only go into our brains where we process those details and then decide what to do with them. According to Glasser (1998), Choice Theory is based in internal control psychology that explains why and how we make the choices that determine the course of our lives. While external control psychology seems to determine or affect our bahavior, Choice Theory states that we are driven entirely by internal control psychology, which responds to or deals with external control psychology. James & Gilliland (2003) noted that Choice Theory explains the development of human personality and attempts to fullfill our five basic innate needs of love and belonging, power, freedom, fun and survival. Each person is born with varying needs. For instance, one person may possess an innately high need for power and a low need for love and belonging, whereas another person may possess a low need for power and a very high need for love and belonging. In essence, each person is born with his or her own individual needs noted by Glasser. Glasser (1998), said survival described the desire to work hard, carry on, do whatever it takes to ensure survival, and go beyond survival to eventually security. The other aspects of survival-the survival of the species-is based on sexual pleasure and, from a genetic standpoint, has been highly successful. Based on Glasser’s opinion, survival consist of desires for food, drink, shelter, comfort, risk-taking, financial, health, safety, sex and convenienced. A requirement for survival differs between humans and animals. Humans are constantly aware of his/her desire and will. Humans can also control desires, whereas animals cannot. Archer and McCarthy (2007) claimed that love and belonging are felt when humans belong to social groups, including families, work groups, social clubs, schools, neighborhoods, and religious organizations. Glasser (1998) states, “Both love and relationships are two way streets. Accepting love is also an art. To learn to receive it graciouslyis of great help any relationships” (p.36). In fact most of Glasser’s clients’ concerns centered around lacks for satisfying relationships (Archer and 166
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
McCarthy 2007). Glasser used the term “disconnected” to refer to such individuals and believed that in the majority of cases they attempted to meet their needs for connection by trying to place externals to external controls over other persons. However, Glasser believed, that such attempts to control another persons only lead to further disconnection were doomed to fail. According to Wubbolding (2000), need for belonging occupies a central place in human motivation. In other words, a wide range of behaviors springs from people’s desire to connect to one another. Also, the development of healthy human relationships provides the basis for a healthy society. Power refers to the need for achievement, competence and accomplishment (Archer and McCarthy 2007). Glasser (1998) wrote that the need for power is unique to human beings. Other animals attempt to gain dominance over each other to assure survival and the ability to reproduce, but humans alone seek power even when it is no longer needed for survival. Instead for human, power as an internal quality points to our need to feel begin control of our lives. If our lives are overly regulated from the outside, we begin to rebel through antisocial behaviour, apathy, or other negative symthoms. However, too much power in one self can be detrimental for everyone. By finding a power balance between internal and external psychologies, we can gain personal empowerment that enables us to contribute to society and lead happy, creative, and productives lives. The next psychological needs are for detrimental to freedom: to be creative, not afraid, independent, decisive and autonomous. Glasser (1998, p.40) believes that the need for freedom is evolution’s attempt to provide the correct balance between others’ desires and our own need. This balance is best expressed by the golden rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Whenever we lose freedom, we may be losing a defining human characteristic: our ability to be contructive and creative. When we don’t feel free to express ourselves, or if we are ignored, our creativity may reversely cause us pain or even make us sick by restraining us. The more we are free and able to satisfy our needs in a way that does not stop another person from satisfying his or hers -- the golden rule again -- the more we able to use our creativity not only for our own benefit but for others as well. Creative people who feel free to create are rarely selfish; they gain much pleasure from sharing their gifts. Glasser (1998, p. 41) defined fun as a genetic reward for learning. Fun is often represented by laughter. People who fall in love and learning about one another themselves laughing almost countinually. Glasser firmly states that, laughing and learning are foundations of all successful long-term relationships; for instance when a marriage begins to sour, fun is the first casualty. James & Gilliland (2003) noted that alongside laughter, play, creativity, the joy of discovery, and the experience of novelty are rewarding to people. The need for fun is stronger in some individuals than in others, but we all have the need for relief. Glasser states that fun is the easiest need 167
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
to satisfy, because there are many things we can do for fun, and rarely does anyone stand in our way. 1.2 Statement of Problem There are significant differences between Western and Asian cultures, thus valid measurement tools used in Western countries are not necessarily valid for use in Asian countries. Therefore, a cross-cultural study of psychological measurement instruments in the context of two different cultures is indispensable. (Fouad & Bracken 1986). Cross-cultural issues in testing and evaluation, as suggested by Marsella and Leong (1995), include difficulty in establishing cross-cultural equivalence, the differences in responses between varying cultures, and differences in cultural attitudes toward a testing. To ensure that appropriate measurements instruments are used, the validity and reliability of the measurements shall be reviewed and determined. It is mandatory for researchers to study the validity and reliability of an instrument of cross-cultural angle (Geisinger 1994). Issues of validity and reliability of measurement instruments arise from the fact that almost all existing measurement instruments in Malaysia come from a foreign place with significantly different cultures. This statement, leads into the question: how then, is a measurement tool for validity and reliability tested? To formulate an answer, this study was undertaken to assess the validity and reliability of measuring instruments used in Malaysia. 1.3 Purpose of study This study aims to measure the coefficient of validity and reliability of the Basic Needs Questionnaire. Conceptual framework was built on Choice Theory founded by William Glasser in 1996. Glasser (2001) explained the development of human personality as an attempt to fullfill the five basics needs of love and belonging, power, fun, freedom and survival. 1.4 Conceptual Framework This study began by building items based on five basic needs that are addressed by Glasser (see Figure 1). Items will be built according to the steps in the Brown Model (1970). There are eight steps in this model that should be followed to construct a questionnaire. Such measures include specific purposes, change goals into operational definitions of the trait, write item, conduct test and item analysis, compose and write the final form, assess standards, and complete technical analysis. A total of 17 items were constructed for each sub constructs for a total of 85 items in the measurement. 168
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
Once the items have been completed, researchers will send questionnaires to the five experts to assess the validity of the instruments. After that, the questionnaire will be sent to students to assess its reliability. When the questionnaire had high validity and reliability, then the instruments will be available and valid.
Choice Theory
Basic needs 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)
Survival Love & Belonging Power Freedom Fun
Brown (1983)
Model
Build item
Validity
Realibility
Measurement ready to use
Figure 1: Conceptual framework of study 2. Methodology The design of the study is descriptive research. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2010) define descriptive research as the collection an analysis of quantitative data in order to develop a precise representation of a sample’s behaviour or personal characteristic with respect to predetermined variables. 2.1 Sampling 169
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
The respondents of this study were divided into two sections: 2.1.1 Expert Panels’ In this study, the researcher was seeking opinions from five expert panel members relating to the instrument to determine the content validity of each sub-scale essential in the Choice Theory. Selection is done by expert panels because of their expertise in Choice Theory and Reality Therapy as well as their expertise in the field of counselling. 2.1.2 Student’s The second subject is analyzed to obtain the coefficient of reliability of a sample of 119 students of form four groups (9th grade) from day schools in Perak, Malaysia. In this study, the researcher has developed a survey questionnaire to examine reliability of basic needs based on the Choice Theory. 2.2 Research Procedure Researcher has carried out a test in 3 phases to examine the validity and reliability of the instrument. 2.2.1 Phase 1: The first phase is using document analysis with cited an important key words on related previous literature. To review the literature, the researcher has sought information from primary materials reading from the writings of Glasser (1985, 1998), Sapora (2008), Burns (2006) and LaFond (2000). The books referred to include Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom (1998), Theory of Counselling and Psychotherapy (2008) and Counselling with choice theory: The new reality therapy (2001). Studies conducted by Burns et al. (2006) and LaFond (2000) also referred to by the researcher. 2.2.2 Phase 2: The second phase study is using quantitative methods. In phase 2, the researcher intends to assess the content validity of the instrument that was built by five experts. Content validity of a measurement tool refers to the extent of the survey instrument is in accordance with the principles of Choice Theory. A measurement device is said to have high content validity if the measurement device can measure all the content and content areas investigated effectively (Mohd Majid 2004; Thorndike 1997 & Tuckman 1975; Wiersma & Jurs 1990). Murphy and Davidshover (1998) state that 170
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
the procedure to predict the content validity of the measurement device consists of three steps that are describe the contents, determine the contents of which will be measured by comparing each measurement items, and measurement structure to structure content. In this study to obtain the content validity, the formula that is used is the total score filled by an expert (x) divided by the total overall score (y) and multiplied by one hundred. A measuring instrument is verified to have high validity when it scored more than 70 percent (Tuckman & Waheed, 1981).
Total expert score (x) ____________________ Total score (y)
X 100
= Content Validity Score
Figure 2: Content validity formula by Sidek & Jamaludin (2005) 2.2.3 Phase 3: After getting the validity of the survey instrument of Choice Theory, the researcher will carry out the reliability of the survey instrument. Researcher will use the testretest methods to find the reliability of the capitalize instrument. The researcher distributed questionnaires to a sample of 119 form four students two times at different times in two secondary schools in Perak. After getting the coefficient of reliability of both these tests, researchers once again distribute the questionnaire to Form Four students in the same two schools. Questionnaires were distributed the third time only including items with acceptable alpha scores. Acceptable items were a total of forty-seven questions. Reliability testing took six months to complete. Valette (1997) states that the value of the coefficient of reliability of the minimum size that can be adopted is .50. Frankel and Wallen (1997) states that the acceptable reliability coefficient was .70. Edward and Richard (1979), and Ebel (1972) noted that the coefficient of reliability of measurement instruments that can be adopted is .80. Hopkins (1998) noted that the size of the coefficient of reliability is .90. Othman (2001) noted that the coefficient of reliability that can be adopted is between .65 to .85, while Syaharom (1990) noted that the coefficient of reliability that can be adopted is .60 to .85. In this study researchers have used the view Othman (2001) and Syaharom (1990) as the cut off point reliability coefficient item. 171
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
3. Results 3.1 Validity The following table shows the views and comments from the five experts. Overall, the experts gave a positive outlook in the questionnaire that was built. See Table 1. Table 1: Improvement of Content Validity Basic Needs Questionnaire Experts Expert 1
Improvement All appropriate items, except that I mark *. These items are extreme, or double-bind (not positive or negative). There may be out-liers in the data later. This is only a suggestion. May be appropriate if the sample consists of students with discipline problems. Items marked * by the panel 1: Sub-scale Survival Item 14: I take a drink. Item 15: I have been having sex. Belonging sub-scale Item 2: My parents are divorced. Sub-scale Freedom Item 1: Students can set the rules of the school. Item 2: I can select the tasks to be performed. Item 6: I can complete freedom from the family.
Expert 2: There are several items I have mentioned to the amendments to suit the sub-constructs and appropriate to the age of the respondents. On the whole, item can be used. However, please express that to the item rating 7 and below. Items that are rating 7 and below: Sub-scale Survival Item 4: I work hard to earn my living. Item 5: I like to hang out with friends of the opposite sex. Item 7: I want to stay alive. Belonging sub-scale Item 3: I live in a happy family. Item 6: I feel disappointed if they do not get the love of family. Sub-scale power Item 15: I feel that I am a competent work. Sub-scale Freedom Item 11: I hate to work individually. Sub-scale Fun 172
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
Item 12: I learned to achieve our ambitions. Item 13: I will stay in school. Item 14: I completed all the exercises at home. Expert 3:
On the whole the items are good but there are some terms that can be improved. A good effort to produce quality instruments to measure CTRT in Malaysia.
Expert 4:
Generally, items can be used to measure constructs and sub-constructs in Choice Theory.
Expert 5:
I suggest not making changes to the questionnaire.
3.2 Reliability Item analysis was conducted to identify the quality of the items contained in the Basic Needs Questionnaire. Items of quality are significant items. Significant items are items that have the alpha of the item deleted less than the standardized item alpha, whereas insignificant items are the items that have the alpha of the item deleted larger than the standardized item alpha. Significant items are items that can discriminate between individuals or groups of individuals responding that have different backgrounds (Sidek, 2005). The findings reliability of the first study of the 85 items was found when standardized item alpha for Basic Needs Questionnaire was an alpha value of .885. The sub constructs for survival .688, for love and belonging is .526, for power is .828, for freedom is .552 and for fun is .731. Next, the second study of the findings reliability of the 85 items was conducted with the standardized item alpha for Basic Needs Questionnaire set at an alpha value of .899. The sub constructs for survival is .617, for love and belonging is .482, for power is .806, for freedom is .572 and for fun is .825. In addition, the findings of the third study of the reliability of the 47 items were found when standardized item alpha for Basic Needs Questionnaire is an alpha value (.871). The sub constructs for survival is.780, for love and belonging is .653, for power is .845, for freedom is .762 and for fun is.793. There are 38 items (alpha if item deleted) identified that have been removed because the item is seen to be insignificant and low in quality. These items are item numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 35, 41, 48, 52, 57, 58, 60, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 84 and 85. The 47 items that were not removed were reviewed once again to form four students in the same two schools. 173
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
These items number are 3, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 82 and 83 (see Table 2). The result shows that the standardized item alpha for 47 items with Cronbach Alpha is .871. Table 2: Quality items in Basics Needs Qustionnaire Item 3. 9. 16. 17. 20. 21. 22. 24. 25. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50.
I have enough facilities at school I feel comfortable at school This school is clean and neat This school is clean and neat I live in a happy family Teachers care about me I have many friends I never get enough love Friendship is vital for me I appreciate all my friends. I have close relationships with all my friends. I feel myself highly regarded by other students. All teachers in this school know me. Sense of belonging is vital for me Maintaining friendships in life is something that is easy for me. I really love the members of my family I have close relationship members with my family I am very important in school I like to be a leader I love to give instructions to other students I work hard to succeed I always want to win Teachers have high expectations of me I am able to put forward my ideas in class I love getting involve in all competitions Victory is very important to me I always want my decision is accepted I have high ambitions I feel myself an efficient worker All people must respect me 174
Cronbach’s Alpha .735 .707 .709 .753 .625 .648 .578 .648 .631 .624
Basic Needs Survival Survival Survival Survival Love & Belonging Love & Belonging Love & Belonging Love & Belonging Love & Belonging Love & Belonging
.593
Love & Belonging
.647 .635 .615
Love & Belonging Love & Belonging Love & Belonging
.616 .638
Love & Belonging Love & Belonging
.610 .839 .833 .833 .836 .827 .839 .844 .829 .825 .837 .830 .826 .833
Love & Belonging Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power Power
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
51. 53. 54. 55. 56. 59. 61. 63. 64. 65. 72. 73. 75. 78. 80. 82. 83.
My view is always correct I can choose the tasks to be performed I can choose my own team members I learn something of my interest in school I can choose my own way to do my work I like to share my creativity with others I like to express my idea freely I am striving to live independently I should be free to make choices My desire to be free is very high I enjoy myself while learning in the classroom I can carry out any activities that I like I am interested in all things My interest to learn is growing I am learning to achieve my goal I completed all my homework at home I have my particular ambition
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
.836 .737 .744 .749 .747 .753 .725 .739 .741 .725 .788
Power Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom Fun
.768 .749 .751 .777 .768 .765
Fun Fun Fun Fun Fun Fun
A Basic Needs Questionnaire consisting of 85 items and 5 subscales was used to measure an individual's basic needs. The results were obtained through the analysis of items and reliability using Cronbach Alpha. The results showed 47 items of quality and significance. Validity of the five panels shows a score of 91 percent and the reliability showed an alpha stadardized item of .871. Based on these findings the Basic Needs Questionnaire had high validity and reliability. 4. Discussion This study helped many individuals to detect the basic needs of the individual. Mishler & Cherry (1999) in Burns et al. (2006) have explained that Choice Theory can be used to help individuals find the basic needs that have not been found. In addition, counsellors can also use this study as a tool to determine a client’s needs before a running a session. In addition, counsellors can focus on key client issues during the counselling session. Thus, a total of 47 valid items in this study can be used to help each individual detect their basic needs, especially school counsellors for their clients. 4.1 The validity coefficient values Basic Needs Questionnaire The Basic Needs Questionnaire showed a high validity rate of 91 percent. It meets the Tuckman & Waheed (1981) standard, which states that a measuring instrument is 175
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
verified to have high validity when it scores 70 percent and above. The five experts gave high scores to the five basic needs resulting in average scores between 8 and 10. This clearly shows that the experts agree with the items that were created. This can be proved by observations or comments from experts. Experts have confirmed that the items built accurately measure the constructs and sub-constructs in the theory of choice. Experts also commented that the overall sub-constructs item is good and praise researchers who have attempted to produce a good quality instrument for measuring instrument oriented Choice Theory and Reality Therapy in Malaysia. The findings of this study have high validity in accordance with the study by Burns et al. (2006). There are several items designed by the researcher in conjunction with the study by Burns et al. (2006). However, experts also give suggestions for changes to some of the items in the five basic needs. Overall, experts have agreed that the Basic Needs Questionnaire has an appropriate validity coefficient. 4.2 The Coefficient Value Reliability Basic Needs Questionnaire Findings indicate that the Basic Needs Questionnaire has standardized item alpha for 47 items. Those items had .871 and .878 alpha value. This finding shows that only 47 of an item is really fine and significant. Therefore, the high alpha in this study proves that 47 items in the Basic Needs Questionnaire are acceptable and reliable for use in the context of Malaysia. These items meet the views of Mohd Majid (2004) who stated that the reliability coefficients greater than .60 can be used and accepted. However, these findings contrary to the findings Lafond (2000) show that the results are of low correlation. These findings together with the findings of Burns et al. (2006), measure the five basic needs in Choice Theory. The questionnaire was used in the study and the students were taken as respondents. The test-retest method was also used in the study. The results showed high reliability coefficient value. These findings coincide with the findings of researcher Ahmad Jazimin (2008) who analyzed the validity and reliability of the Questionnaire Counsellor Profile Reality Therapy. The results show the items in the questionnaire with the coefficient of reliability are very high. These findings coincide with done by studies Pei Pei Cheng and Eng (2009), and Sidek & Wan Marzuki (2007), both sets of researchers who used a questionnaire to measure the coefficient of reliability. These studies also take students as respondents. Sidek & Wan Marzuki’s study aims to identify the validity and 176
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
reliability of Inventory Valuation Counsellors of Supervisors. The results showed high reliability similar to that found by this researcher. The findings of researchers in conjunction with Lee Lay Wah et al. (2008) study that conducted two tests involving the construction process test and found the validity and reliability tests. Both tests are reviewed with the student to assess his credibility. The results shows are high quality and can be used to identify problem students. In conclusion, the coefficient of reliability of a measuring instrument should be sought to ensure consistency in the measurement device. Accordingly, Abu Bakar Nordin (1987), Mohd. Majid (2004), Sidek (2007) and Othman (2000) states that a measurement tool is considered strong and steady when there is evidence of its reliability. 4.3 Research implication This instrument helps counsellors to detect the basic needs of individuals, especially in counselling sessions. Counsellors can distribute a questionnaire related to the basic needs of these measurement tools to understand and explore the client’s problems before the counselling session. At the same time, the person who uses this questionnaire receives benefits. In the context of education, there are various ways to detect human problems. The need for psychological testing tools is very necessary to detect individual psychology, particularly of fundemental human needs. The Basic Needs Questionnaire can be used to analyze physiological and psychological needs based on Choice Theory. 4.4 Recommendations Based on the findings obtained from this instrument, some specific recommendations are suggested to future creators of this instrument. Futher studies seek to improve the weak items in the basic measuring tools so that all items reach high validity and reliability. Researchers are advised to use other methods such as methods for testing the reliability using two different basic measuring tools to see whether these findings are consistent. This method is not only convenient, but also cheaper, faster and more practical (Sidek, 2005). In addition, practitioners of psychology and counselling are recommended to review the instrument from overseas to evaluate the appropriateness of its use in Malaysia. Practitioners of psychology and counselling are also recommended to develop an instrument that will benefit the human development in Malaysia. Practitioners of psychology and counselling in schools in particular can use 177
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
the instrument of basic needs to see the needs of students so that communication can be improved, thereby reducing the problems that occur in school or outside school. Finally, future research is recommended to focus on the validity of this instrument by using a larger sample to measure validity and reliability of these basic needs to improve adoption in Malaysia. 5. Conclusion Overall, this study has discussed the instrument of basic needs and has determined the validity and reliability of this instrument. The findings also show that this test instrument suitable for use in the context of Malaysia as this survey instrument has good validity and reliability. References Abu Bakar Nordin (1987). Basic Evaluation in Education. Petaling Jaya: Longman. Ahmad Jazimin Jusoh. (2008). The pattern of application of Reality Therapy among counsellors in Malaysia. PhD Thesis Unpublished: Universiti of Kebangsaan Malaysia. Archer, J. & McCarthy (2007). Theories of counselling and psychotherapy contemporary applications. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Brown, F.G. (1970). Principles of Educational and Psychological Testing. Amerika Syarikat, The Dryden Press Inc. Burns, M.K., Vance, D., Szadokierski, I. & Stockwell, C. (2006). Students Needs Survey: A Psychometrically Sound Measure of the five basic needs. International Journal of Reality Therapy. Vol. XXV, num 2. Ebel, R.L. (1972). Essential of educational measurement. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Edward, G. C., & Richard, A. Z. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. United States of America: Sage Publication, Inc. Fouad, N. A., & Bracken, B.A. (1986). Cross-cultural Translation and Validation of Two US Psychoeducational Assessment instruments. School Psychology International. Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen, N.E (1997). How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 3rd.ed. New York: Mc. Graw. Hill, Inc. Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2010). Applying Educational Research. USA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural Normative Assessment: Translation and Adaptation Issues Imfluencing The Normative Interpretation of Assessment Instruments. Psychologycal Assessment. Glasser, W. (1985). Control Theory. New York: HarperCollins, Glasser, W. (1998) Choice Theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York: 178
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
HarperCollins. Glasser, W. 2001. Counselling with choice theory : The new reality therapy. New York: HarperCollins. Hopkins, K.D. 1998. Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Ed. ke-8. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. James, R.K. & Gilliland, B.E. (2003). Theories and strategies in counselling and psychotherapy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. LaFond, B. A. G. (2000). Glasser’s Reality Therapy approach to relationships: Validation of a Choice Theory Basic Needs Scale (Doctoral Dissertation, St. Mary’s University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 60, 3615. Lee Lay Wah, Manisah Mohd. Ali and Noraini Salleh (2008). Pembinaan dan Pengesahan Ujian Membaca Perkataan dan Ujian Mengeja untuk Tujuan Mengenal Pasti Disleksia: satu kajian rintis. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pendidikan, Jil. 23, 151-162. Marsella, A.J., & Leong, F.T.L. (1995). Cross-cultural Issues in Personality and Career Assessment. Journal of career assessment. Mohd Majid Konting (2004). Research Method in Education 7th. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Murphy, K. R & Davidshover, C.O. (1998). Psychological Testing. Principle and Application. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Othman Mohamed (2000). Principles of Psychotherapy and Counselling in management. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia. Othman Mohamed (2001). Thesis Writing in the Field of Applied Social Sciences. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia. Pei Cheng & Pei Eng (2009). Determination of Validity and Reliability Measurement Metacognitive With Rasch Model Analysis. Pulau Pinang: Universiti Teknologi MARA. Sapora Sipon (2008). Counselling Theories and Psychoterapies. Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus: Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia. Sidek Mohd Noah dan Jamaludin Ahmad (2005). Construction Module: How to Build Module Training and Academic Module. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia. Sidek Mohd Noah dan Wan Marzuki Wan Jaafar (2007). Validity and Reliability Analysis of Inventory Valuation Counsellors of Supervisors (IPKtP). Jurnal PERKAMA, 13:1-13. Sidek Mohd Noah (2005). Testing and Evaluation Counselling Theory and Applications. Serdang: Ampang Press Sdn. Bhd. Sidek Mohd Noah (2005). Research design: Philosophy, Theory and Practice. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia. Sidek Mohd Noah (2007). Validity and Reliability Tool Size Vocational Preference Inventory by John L. Holland. Jurnal PERKAMA, 13:59-73. Sunday Star (2010, Januari 3). Students caught abusing drugs., 16. 179
International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2308-1365)
Vol. 2 No. 5 May 2015 www.ijcas.net
Syaharom Abdullah (1990). Practical Guide To Educational Research. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Edisi Terjemahan. Thorndike, R. M. (1997). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. (ed. Ke-6). New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Tuckman, B.W. (1975). Measuring Educational Outcomes: Fundamentals of Testing. New York, Harcout Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Tuckman, B.W., Waheed, MA. (1981). Evaluating an Individualized Science Programme for Community College Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 18, 489-495. Vallette, R.M. 1997. Modern Language Testing: A Hand Book. Ed. ke-2. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich. Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S.G. (1990). Educational Measurement and Testing. (Ed. ke-2). United States of America, Allyn and Bacon. Wubbolding, R.E. (2000). Reality Therapy for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins.
180
