Journal 1: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with Rasch measurement model

Summary

Introduction Critique Conclusion

Research Research Research Statistical Method and Discussion
objective question hypothesis assumption Data
presentation

1. Evaluation of A 1. To identify 1.Does the 1. The 1. The 1. Quantitative 1. Authors found 1. First of all, the 1. Based on my
Test Measuring the mathematical mathematica assumptions research. that the arguments in the overview, the
Mathematical mathematica modelling l modelling of a CFA mathematical journal was explicit authors
Modelling l modelling test best test does not include 2. Survey modelling test literally easy to successfully
Competency for test best match the best match multivariate approach. indicates an understand the achieved their
Indonesian match the sample in the sample normality. acceptable content. The purpose by doing
College Students sample in Indonesian in 3. Data is Rasch model writer’s intention detail analysis with
by Hidayat, R., Indonesian setting? Indonesian 2. EFA to analyzed using property. was to validate and relevant data.
Qudratuddarsi, setting. setting. uncover the exploratory proof the reliability
H., Mazlan, N. 2. Is the underlying factor analysis 2. The concept of of a mathematical 2. Viewed in this
H., & Mohd Zeki, 2.To identify mathematical 2. The structure of (EFA), the EFA states modelling test for way, Exploratory
M. Z. (2021) from mathematica modelling mathematica a relatively confirmatory that the model secondary factor analysis
Journal of l modelling test valid and l modelling large set of factor analysis should be prospective (EFA) and
Nusantara test valid and reliable in test is not variables. (CFA) using interpreted as a mathematics Confirmatory factor
Studies, 6(2), reliable in Indonesian valid and not AMOS 18 and rational teachers. analysis (CFA) with
133-155. Indonesian setting? reliable in 3. It is much Rasch statement that Rasch
setting. Indonesian more measurement explains the 2. Besides, all the measurement
2. The setting. subjective model with problem. words in the writing model are very
researchers want and Winstep clearly explain their useful analysis tool
to validate a interpretive. version 3.73. 3. Authors state thought of this to do evaluation on
mathematical that the results research. test items.
modelling test for 4. Rasch 4. The KMO indicate that all
secondary modeling measure was eight sub- 3. Riyan Hidayat, 3. Sum up, this
prospective makes very used to constructs were Hilman article has a good
mathematics strong determine unidimensional. Qudratuddarsi, contribution as a
teachers. assumptions sampling Nurul Hijja Mazlan, reference by
about the adequacy 4. The eight sub- et al. ,2021 able to reviewing, since it
3.This purpose is behavior of (Chua, 2014), dimensions of the validate and proof has a good content
very important to the and Bartlett’s mathematical the reliability. of information on
the subject of modelling test of modelling test validity of the
mathematics test items sphericity was best-matched the 4. It can be seen mathematical
since many (Gambrell, used to confirm sample in clearly through modelling test.
researchers 2010, June the worthiness Indonesian Exploratory factor
frequently adopt 14). of the factor context. analysis (EFA) and
instrument from model. Confirmatory factor
one cultural analysis (CFA) with
background to Rasch
 another 5. Exploratory measurement
therefore, the Factor Analysis model.
authors offer EFA procedure
proof on the was performed 5. Author selected
issue of validity to consider all the purpose
and reliability. the 22 because it is very
questions important to the
4. I am totally comprising subject of
agreeing with the eight mathematics since
authors purpose. dimensions of many researchers
mathematical frequently adopt
modelling instrument from
competency. one cultural
background to
another.

6. The results of
this study support
the findings of
previous works on
the subject of
mathematical
modeling (Haines &
Crouch, 2001;
Izard et al, 2003;
Lingefjärd &
Holmquist, 2005).

6. This makes me
feel that as an
educator, I should
always upgrade
and update my
mathematical
teaching skills so
that I can generate
a comprehensive
student to the
current century.
Reference

Gambrell, J. L. (2010, June 14). Rasch modelling to identify a one-dimensional construct [Message 2]. SEMNET: Structural Equation Modeling Discussion Group.
Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/archives/semnet.html

Hidayat, R., Qudratuddarsi, H., Mazlan, N. H., & Mohd Zeki, M. Z. (2021). Evaluation of a test measuring mathematical modelling competency for Indonesian
college students. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(2), 133-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss2pp133-155
Journal 2: Multiple linear regression analysis
Summary

Introduction Critique Conclusion

Research Research Research Statistical Method and Discussion
objective question hypothesis assumption Data
presentation

1. Evaluation of A 1. To identify 1.Does the 1. The 1. The 1. Quantitative 1. Authors found 1. First of all, the 1. Based on my
Test Measuring the mathematical mathematica assumptions research. that the arguments in the overview, the
Mathematical mathematica modelling l modelling of a CFA mathematical journal was explicit authors
Modelling l modelling test best test does not include 2. Survey modelling test literally easy to successfully
Competency for test best match the best match multivariate approach. indicates an understand the achieved their
Indonesian match the sample in the sample normality. acceptable content. The purpose by doing
College Students sample in Indonesian in 3. Data is Rasch model writer’s intention detail analysis with
by Hidayat, R., Indonesian setting? Indonesian 2. EFA to analyzed using property. was to validate and relevant data.
Qudratuddarsi, setting. setting. uncover the exploratory proof the reliability
H., Mazlan, N. 2. Is the underlying factor analysis 2. The concept of of a mathematical 2. Viewed in this
H., & Mohd Zeki, 2.To identify mathematical 2. The structure of (EFA), the EFA states modelling test for way, Exploratory
M. Z. (2021) from mathematica modelling mathematica a relatively confirmatory that the model secondary factor analysis
Journal of l modelling test valid and l modelling large set of factor analysis should be prospective (EFA) and
Nusantara test valid and reliable in test is not variables. (CFA) using interpreted as a mathematics Confirmatory factor
Studies, 6(2), reliable in Indonesian valid and not AMOS 18 and rational teachers. analysis (CFA) with
133-155. Indonesian setting? reliable in 3. It is much Rasch statement that Rasch
setting. Indonesian more measurement explains the 2. Besides, all the measurement
2. The setting. subjective model with problem. words in the writing model are very
researchers want and Winstep clearly explain their useful analysis tool
to validate a interpretive. version 3.73. 3. Authors state thought of this to do evaluation on
mathematical that the results research. test items.
modelling test for 4. Rasch 4. The KMO indicate that all
secondary modeling measure was eight sub- 3. Riyan Hidayat, 3. Sum up, this
prospective makes very used to constructs were Hilman article has a good
mathematics strong determine unidimensional. Qudratuddarsi, contribution as a
teachers. assumptions sampling Nurul Hijja Mazlan, reference by
about the adequacy 4. The eight sub- et al. ,2021 able to reviewing, since it
3.This purpose is behavior of (Chua, 2014), dimensions of the validate and proof has a good content
very important to the and Bartlett’s mathematical the reliability. of information on
the subject of modelling test of modelling test validity of the
mathematics test items sphericity was best-matched the 4. It can be seen mathematical
since many (Gambrell, used to confirm sample in clearly through modelling test.
researchers 2010, June the worthiness Indonesian Exploratory factor
frequently adopt 14). of the factor context. analysis (EFA) and
instrument from model. Confirmatory factor
one cultural analysis (CFA) with
background to 5. Exploratory Rasch
another Factor Analysis measurement
therefore, the EFA procedure model.
authors offer was performed
proof on the to consider all 5. Author selected
issue of validity the 22 the purpose
and reliability. questions because it is very
comprising important to the
4. I am totally eight subject of
agreeing with the dimensions of mathematics since
authors purpose. mathematical many researchers
modelling frequently adopt
competency. instrument from
one cultural
background to
another.

6. The results of
this study support
the findings of
previous works on
the subject of
mathematical
modeling (Haines &
Crouch, 2001;
Izard et al, 2003;
Lingefjärd &
Holmquist, 2005).

6. This makes me
feel that as an
educator, I should
always upgrade
and update my
mathematical
teaching skills so
that I can generate
a comprehensive
student to the
current century.