مدى اختلاف الخصائص السيكومترية لأداة القياس في ضوء تغايير عدد بدائل الاستجابة والمرحلة الدراسية

The objective of the current study is to recognize the extent of effect of the multi alternatives response of measurement tools and school stages difference on reliability and validity coefficients. Also it tried to acknowledge the extent of difference of styles or types of the individual’s response in the light of change of the number of measurement alternatives and school stages. For data collection we used scale tension list measurement for Charles Splirger & others prepared and translated to Arabic by Dr. Nabeel Al-Zahar and Dr. Danis Hosfer. Three additional forms are made of this measurement differs only in the number of response alternatives. Hence we now have four forms of the measurement (two alternatives form, three alternatives form, four alternatives and the five alternatives). The tension feature measurement for Charles Spliger & others, prepared & translated to Arabic by Dr. Al- Behairi as external examiner for measurement of concurrence validity. All these measurements were applied on a sample consist of 451 students from different stages of general education at Jeddah city. They are used in a multi-stage punch style as follows: 172 from class (6) of elementary school, 136 student from 3rd class of intermediate school and 143 students from 3rd class of secondary school, scientific section. We took in consideration while presenting the measurement to the students the following ranking: two alternatives measurement, three alternatives measurement, five alternative measurement and at last the four alternatives (original) measurement. The time interval between each application is 14 days simultaneously at each of the application school. For reply of the study inquiries a group of statistical analysis are made (Z. V. and M) to know the difference between each of the reliability & validity coefficients as used by the statistician Ka in order to recognize the difference occur at response style of each individual according to difference of alternatives numbers and age stage. From the discussion of the study result we can conclude the following: 1) The measurement tools of the psychometrical characteristics are in general affected by the change of the number of response alternatives, and hence it is not independent of it. If the number of response alternatives increase the values of reliability and validity coefficients increases, and with statistical function difference at level of 0.01 and 0.05. 2) The difference in school stage affects the validity co-efficient of measurement tools more than affection on reliability co-efficient. As it is noticed that the validity coefficient of the measurement tool increases with the increase in the mental and knowledge growth of the students. 3) The five alternatives measurement showed high reliability degree compared to other measurements. On the other hand the four alternatives measurement has higher validity co-efficient value than other measurements. 4) The values of the reliability & validity coefficients increases when the alternative tools are many, particularly when the respondents are of high caliber and have high incentive for participation supported with clear perception to the measured featured and the importance of its measurement. 5) The response style of individuals differs according to number of alternatives and difference of school stage as it becomes of more spread and diversified as the mental and knowledge growth increases at the individual. Because availability of multi-alternatives grants the respondent more allowance to express himself with more precision reflecting what actually in his mind without falsification or tendency to one style of response. In the light of results reached by this study and the outcome of the previous studies results. A number of recommendations are suggested which concentrates on the importance of the number of measurement tools and that they should be scientifically specified instead of being randomly selected. I.e. the measurement shall include 5 alternatives for higher knowledge stages and less for lower knowledge stages. Also we ensure on sensitivity of the tool and its distinguishing capability, taking care of its validity when applied on samples of high difference of ages and knowledge level even if it showed high reliability.