Psychometric Properties and Norming of Learning Agility Index: Online Assessment to Measure Fluid Intelligence
Abstract
The Learning Agility Index (LAI) is an online assessment used to assess Fluid Intelligence, the pure intellectual speed and power evaluated by the ability to solve new problems creatively. Using a battery of five sub-tests, LAI can deliver a global trainability quotient (GTQ) indicating how well an individual performs in a training context. This study aims to analyze psychometric properties and norming for LAI. The research data comprised 28,980 subjects from the online test database for employees selection owned by PT Global Talentlytica Indonesia. The research approach used in this study is classical test theory. Psychometric property analysis utilized Cronbach's alpha reliability estimation method and collected validity evidence based on internal structure. The reliability analysis results showed that the five sub-tests had strong reliabilities with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.92 to 0.97. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the measurement model of the Learning Agility Index with CFI 0.988, RMSEA 0.022, and SRMR 0.20. The intelligence levels represented by the measurement results were divided into five levels, ranging from “below average” to “far above average.” These findings prove that LAI is a reliable and valid online assessment for measuring fluid intelligence in the context of employees selection or evaluation.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Azis, A. (2016). Analisis tes buatan guru bidang studi matematika kelas v sd 1 katobengke. Edumatica : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.22437/edumatica.v6i01.2998
Barros, E., Kausel, E. E., Cuadra, F., & Díaz, D. A. (2014). Using general mental ability and personality traits to predict job performance in three chilean organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(4), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12089
Beauducel, A., & Kersting, M. (2002). Fluid and crystallized intelligence and the berlin model of intelligence structure (BIS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.2.97
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding hrm-firm performance linkages: the role of the “strength” of the hrm system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2004.12736076
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Cengage Learning.
Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2017). Statistics without maths for psychology (seventh ed). Pearson Education Limited.
Friedenberg, L. (1995). Psychological testing: design, analysis, and use. Allyn and Bacon.
Horn, J. (1988). Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (Second Ed, pp. 645–682). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0893-5_2
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Murtza, M. H., Gill, S. A., Aslam, H. D., & Noor, A. (2020). Intelligence quotient, job satisfaction, and job performance: The moderating role of personality type. Journal of Public Affairs, Special Issue Paper, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2318
Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2019). Meta-analysis of the validity of general mental ability for five performance criteria: Hunter and hunter (1984) revisited. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(OCT), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02227
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Shaffer, J. A. (2016). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical Implications of 100 Years. Fox Business School, Working Pa(October), 1-. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18843.26400
Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2012). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203851319
Talentlytica. (2020, n.d.). Laporan Pengujian Validitas dan Reliabilitas TOP. PT. Global Talentlytica Indonesia. Retrieved from: www.talentlytica.com
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Lyons, B. D. (2010). Beyond personality: The impact of GMA on performance for entry/level service employees. Journal of Service Management, 21(3), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231011050797
Thomas International. (2006, n.d.). TST Validation Overview. (2006). Thomas International Organization. Retrieved from: www.thomasinternational.net.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/suksma.v5i1.7700
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.