ATMI TO MEASURE THE MATHEMATICS ATTITUDE

IN ELEMENTARY STUDENTS

Siska Nur Rahmawati1, Muh. Faathir Husain2

1,2
Yogyakarta State University, Jln. Colombo No.1, Sleman, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia
email: siskagamaya@gmail.com

Abstract
Character education could not be separated from the affective sphere or student attitudes.
Students 'attitudes have been known to be influenced the students' activeness and achievement
toward mathematics learning. Some instruments have long been developed to measure students'
mathematical attitudes such as Attitudes Toward Mathematics Inventory (ATMI) that developed
by Tapia & Marsh. The purpose of this research is to analyze the construct validity of ATMI.
Instruments were distributed to 150 students at 6th grade elementary school. Confirmatory
Factor Analysis were used to see the good model for dimensions in mathematics attitude. This
validation tried to reveal the suitability of the instruments to measure the elementary students'
mathematics attitude in the Yogyakarta context.

Keywords: Mathematics attitude, ATMI, Construct Validity, CFA

1
1 INTRODUCTIO cognitive more stable than theoretical
N understanding, belief and/ or framework
Many while affective value. (McLeod, 1992;
researchers still factors play a . Based on Zan & Di
interest to assess crucial role in the the statement, Martino, 2003)
the attitudes of process of somehow the that needs to be
students, parents, learning primary students developed further.
teachers, or even mathematics. The are suitable to The
administrators study conducted explore the Attitudes Toward
(Adelson and by McLeod attitudes. At the Mathematics
McCoach: 2010). around the 90's, in growing phase of Inventory (ATMI)
Allport in Pickens the newest, was them, the attitudes (Tapia & Marsh,
(2005) defined an arranged about of primary 2004) is one of
attitude as a the affective students are a the latest
readiness, domain in dominant instruments, but it
organized through mathematics subdomain that has not enjoyed
experience, education. recognizably to significant
exerting a McLeod (1992) measure. The application in
directive or Together with his development of research
dynamic colleagues study about (Chamberlin,
influence on the divided affective student attitudes 2010). It was
individuals spheres into three at long period of chosen for this
response to all sub-domains: time conclude study because it
objects and emotions, that it has provides a sharp
situations to attitudes, and powerful impacts and distinct focus
which it is beliefs. DeBellis on their effective and identifies four
related. So that and Goldin engagement, dimensions along
the mathematics (2000) add participation and which attitudes
is field that an subdomain ie achievement in toward
attitude could value. Recent mathematics mathematics
impact the mental research, (Majeed, could be
process of "attitude" is used Darmawan, measured. The
individuals even to sum it all up. Lynch, 2013). improved ATMI
students (Majeed, Affective math is Many researchers comprised 40
Darmawan, directed to chart claim that despite items that
Lynch, 2013; Di the basics of the fact that measured four
Martino & Zan, anxiety and research on domains:
2011; Goldin, mathematical attitude, as enjoyment, value,
2000, 2002; procedures compared to other motivation, and
Grootenboer & (Evans, 2006). subdomain of self-confidence
Hemmings, 2007; Leder and affects, has the (Majeed,
Malmifuori, 2001, Grootenboer longest history, Darmawan,
2006, 2007; (2005) express the term attitude Lynch, 2013).
Schloglmann, statements with remains an Scoring was done
2003). the category ambiguous with a five-point
There is an inside. The construct (e.g. Likert Scale, with
increased attitude is more Hart, 1989; response options
understanding of stable than Hannula, 2002) from strongly
the factors that emotions and with an disagree to
influence feelings, but not ambiguous strongly agree.
2
 Siska Nur Rahmawati, Muh. Faathir Husain.

As a of the instrument, Indonesia keeping RMSEA (Root

development only 32 were used in mind that this Mean Square
process of ATMI, and omitting eight study conducted Error of
based on that items to make the to explore the Approximation),
definition above, instrument more ATMI in RMR (Root
(1) is the ATMI a manageable Yogyakarta Mean-square
reliable and a length and context. After Residual), GFI
valid instrument prevent the translating and (Goodness-of-Fit
to measure negative impact proofreading it, Index), NFI
elementary on completion by 40 items of ATMI (Normed Fit
students attitudes the respondent then reduced to Index), Non-
toward without 32 items and Normed Fit Index
mathematics in compromising its omitting eight (NNFI), and CFI
the Yogyakarta validity. items without (Comparative Fit
context? So, the 2.1 Research compromising its Index). Loading
purpose of this Settings validity to prevent factor and t-Value
research is to find The study the respondent are criteria that
the construct was conduct at dropouts during were used to
validity of the September 2017 data collecting. analyze the
ATMI in in 7 public The final measurement
Yogyakarta elementary school instrument then model fit. The
context especially in Sleman distributed to the standard of
in elementary Regency, Special respondent. significance value
students. Region of The data for the validity
Yogyakarta. then analysed based on Hair,
2 METHOD 2.2 Research using Lisrel 8.80 Black, Babin,
This study Subject to measure the Ander-son, &
conducted as Using construct validity. Tatham (2010)
quantitative cluster random Confirmato were factor
descriptive to sampling out of ry factor analysis loadings .3 to .4
explore the 14 public was used to are minimally
construct validity elementary analyse the acceptable.
of ATMI for schools in Sleman construct validity
elementary Regency as of the data. 3 RESULTS AND
student in population, 7 Firstly, the overall DISCUSSION
Yogyakarta elementary model fit was Before
context. A total of schools were conduct to examine the
184 elementary chosen, and examine the fit of construct validity
students reaching 184 the model based of the instrument,
participated in elementary on the goodness reliability was
this study. The students at 6 fit indices then assessed to
respondents were grades as measure the confirm the
elementary respondent. measurement of internal
students at 5 and 2.3 Procedure and fit. The criteria consistency of
6 grades in 7 Data Analysis that were used to instruments items.
public elementary The ATMI evaluate the The Cronbachs
schools in Sleman instrument was goodness of fit alpha statistics for
regency. adapted by are: normed chi- the instrument
Reducing translating it from square ( ), was .741. These
the total of items English to Bahasa results confirmed
3
 Siska Nur Rahmawati, Muh. Faathir Husain.

the adequacy of necessary to the so the level of fit Questionnaire

the internal overall model of is in poor fit instrument were
consistency of the fit first. If overall (Browne & described here.
instrument. model fit match Cudeck, 1993). Measurement
To examine with the criteria, The result of model fit conduct
the overall and then the RMR and CFI is . using first order
measurement measurement 089 and .92 confirmatory
model fit, model fit could be respectively, with factor analysis or
confirmatory conduct to fulfil N250 the model 1st CFA. The
factor analysis the construct will in good fit criteria for
was used. The validity analysis level if construct validity
explanation of condition. Standardized are loading factor
each criteria in The table RMR .09 and and t-Value. If
overall model fit below shows the CFI> .92 (Hair, loading factor is
that mentioned overall model fit Black, Babin, greater than .3
before i.e. value after the Anderson, & and t-Value more
Normed Chi- data was analysed Tatham, 2006) so than 1.96 then the
Square is ratio using Lisrel 8.80. that those criteria item is
between Chi- are in marginal categorized as
Square and
GOF Resul Level of Fitfit. The criteria of valid item. Those
degree of
Criteria t GFI range from 0 criteria refer to
freedom. RMSEA Normed 3.11 Poor fit (poor fit) to 1 assumption that
is most
RMSEA .107 Poor fit (perfect fit). The factor loadings
informative RMR .089 GFI scores .67 so
Marginal fit .3 to .4 are
indicator for
GFI .67 Good fit that the fit level is minimally
model fit. RMR NFI .88 in good criteria.
Marginal fit acceptable.
represent the
NNFI .91 The
Marginal fit criteria of (Hair, Black,
residual mean CFI by .92 GFI is same for
Marginal fit Babin, Anderson,
matching the NFI and NNFI. & Tatham, 2006).
covariance matrix Table 1 Considering the
of the data. GFI is shows the normed condition above, First Order CFA
a scale of it could say that Item Interpret
2, that is the LF t-Val
precision of the ratio between the the overall model
model that 2 and degree of is fit to measure SF1 .80 10.28 Valid
resulting freedom. Good fit the construct SF2 .79 10.91 Valid
covariance level suggests that validity of the SF3 .81 11.20 Valid
matrix. NFI has a the score must be instrument.
SF4 .76 11.82 Valid
tendency to range from 1.00 3.2 Measurement
SF5 .83 11.57 Valid
lowering the fit in to 2.00. because Model Fit
small sample size. the score is 3.11 After the SF6 -.46 -5.33 Not Valid
NNFI was used to so that the overall model is SF7 -.57 -9.18 Not Valid
fix the problem normed 2 is in fit, the SF8 -.50 -6.85 Not Valid
that caused by the the poor level. measurement SF9 -.49 -7.22 Not Valid
complexity of the RMSEA scored . model fit was SF10 .61 7.87 Valid
model. 055. Because the conduct. The SF11 -.49 -6.63 Not Valid
3.1 Overall Model score is greater result of SF12 -.51 -7.98 Not Valid
Fit than the measurement Val1 .52 9.82 Valid
To analyse suggested score model fit for Val2 .30 5.84 Valid
the construct (RMSEA< .05), Skills for Val3 .39 7.04 Valid
validity, it Learning
4
 Siska Nur Rahmawati, Muh. Faathir Husain.

Val4 .68 10.53 t-value > 1.96 so Lynch, 2013). CA: Sage, 136-
Val5 .66 10.83 that out of 32 The ATMI is 162 (Electronic
Val6 .68 10.67 items only 24 particularly Version).
Val7 .59 8.70 items are valid. 2) useful, both for Chamberlin, S.A.
The 24 items of teachers, who (2010). A review
Enj Enj1 .69 10.40
adapted ATMI are want to monitor of instruments
Enj2 -.73 -8.02
constructively students attitude created to assess
Enj3 .58 7.74 valid to measure toward affect in
Enj4 .60 7.74 the mathematics mathematics, and mathematics.
Enj5 .71 9.04 attitude from for researchers, Journal f
Enj6 .47 6.09 elementary who often use Mathematics
Enj7 .74 10.97 student in different Education, 3(1),
Enj8 .44 6.77 Yogyakarta instruments in 167-182.
Enj8 .57 8.43 context. The their studies. For Di Martino, P., &
Mot Mot1 .62 9.37 results are the further study, Zan, R. (2010).
Mot2 -.52 -5.83 consistent with larger sample and Me and maths:
Mot3 .65 8.99 the factor better translating Towars a
structure reported may give more definition of
Mot4 .55 8.43
by Majeed, credible result. attitude
Darmawan, & grounded on
Table 2
Lynch (2013), REFERENCES students
shows the
whose sample Adelson, J.L., & narratives.
summary of
involved 699 McCoach, D.B. Journal of
construct validity
Osuth Australian (2010). Mathematics
using 1st CFA. It
students in 7 and Measuring the Teacher
shows that the
8 grades. mathematical Education,
items of the
By reducing attitudes of 13(1), 27-48.
instrument have
the 40 items of elementary Di Martino, P., &
loading factor > .
ATMI, the 24 students: The Zan, R. (2011).
3 and t-Value >
items he effects of a 4- Attitude towards
1.96 it means the
reliability and point or 5-point mathematics: a
instrument was
validity estimates Likert-type bridge between
valid
for ATMI are scale. beliefs and
constructively and
stable over many Educational and emotions. ZDM:
could measure the
years after its Psychological The
gap of skills of
initial Measurement International
vocational
administration in 70(5) 796-807. Journal on
students. Item SF
1996 and beyond Browne, M.W., & Mathematics
6, SDF 7, SF 8,
the initial Cudeck, R. Education, 43,
SF 9, SF 11, SF
samples. These (1993). 471-482.
12, Enj 2, Mot 2
considerations Alternative Evans, J. (2006).
is not valid.
provide ways of Affect and
compelling assessing model Emoticon in
4 CONCLUSION
rationale for its fit. In K. A. Mathematical
Based on
use in future Bollen & J.S Thingking and
analysis result, it
research about Long (Eds), Learning. The
can be concluded
attitudes toward Testing Turn to the
that conclusion 24
mathematics Structural Social:
items have factor
(Majeed, Equatin Models. Sociocultural
loading > .3 and
Darmawan, & Newbury Park, Approaches
5
 Siska Nur Rahmawati, Muh. Faathir Husain.

Introduction: factors. York, NY: student affect in

Recent Mathematics Springer-Verlag. learning
Developments Education Majeed, A.A., mathematics. In
in Research On Research Darmawan, C.L. Petroselli
Affect. In J. Journal, 19(3), I.G.N., & (Ed), Science
Maasz, W. 3-20. Lynch, P. education:
Schloeglmann Hannula, M.S. (2013). A Issues and
(Eds), New (2002). Attitude confirmatory developments
mathematics towards factor analysis (pp. 125-149).
education mathematics: of atttudes New York, NY:
research and Emotions, toward Nova Science
practice (p.203- epectations and athematics Publishers.
208). values. inventory McLeod, D.B.
Rotterdam: Educational (ATMI). The (1992).
Sence Studies in Mathematics Research on
Publishers. Mathematics, Educator: Vol affect in
Goldin, G.A. (2000). 49(1), 25-46. 15, No. 1, 121- mathematics
Affective Hair, Jr.J.F., Black, 135. education: A
pathways and W.C., Babin, Malmivuori, M.L reconceptualizat
representation in B.J., Anderson, (2001). The ion. In D.A.
mathematical R.E. & Tatham, dynamics of Grouws (Ed).
problem R.I. (2006). affect, Handbook of
solving. Multivarite cognition, and research on
Mathematical Data Analysis, social mathematics
Thingking and 6th edition. New environment in learning and
Learning, 2, Jersey: Person the regulation of teaching
209-219. Prentice Hall. personal (pp.575-596).
Goldin, G.A. (2002). Hair, J.F., Anderson, learning New York, NY:
Affect, meta- R.E., Tatha,, processes: the Macmillan.
affect, and R.L. & Black, case of Leder, G.C. &
mathematical W.C. (2010). mathematics. Grootenboer, P.
belief structures, Multivariate Department of (2005).
in G. Leder, E. data analysis Teacher Editorial: affect
Pehkonen & G. (7th ed). New Education, and mathematics
Torner (Eds.), Jersey: Prentice- Research Report eduation.
Beliefs:A hidden Hall. 172. Helsinki: Mathematics
variable in Hart, L.E. (1989). Helsinski Educaton
mathematics Describing te University Research
education (pp. affective Press. Journal, 17(2),
59-72). domain: saying Malmivuori, M.L. 1-8.
Dordrecht: what we mean. (2006). Affect Pickens, J. (2005).
Kluwer. In D.B. McLed and self- Attitudes and
Grootenboeer, P. & & V.M. Adms regulation. perceptions.
Hemmings, B. (Eds). Affect Educational Organizational
(2007). and Studies in behaviour in
Mathematics mathematical Mathematics, health care, 43-
performance and problem 63(2), 149-164. 76.
the role played solving; A new Malmivuori, M.L. Schloglmann, W.
by affective and perspective (2007). (2003). Affect
background (pp.37-45). New Understanding and cognition:
6
 Siska Nur Rahmawati, Muh. Faathir Husain.

Two poles of a
learning
process.
Retrieved from
http://www.educ
ation.monash.ed
u.au/project/vam
p/schloglmann2
001.pdf.
Tapia, M., & Marsh,
G. E., II. (2002).
Confirmatory
factor analysis
of the Attitudes
Toward
Mathematics
Inventory. Paper
presented at the
Annual Meeting
of the Mid-
South
Educational
Research
Association,
Chattanooga,
TN. (ERIC
Document
Reproduction
Service No. ED
471 301).