Analysis shows that the Learning Behavior Questionnaire is valid and reliable in measuring student learning behavior, indicating it can be effectively utilized in educational settings.
Learning behavior refers to students’ preparedness to embrace various learning forms and techniques, encompassing skills, activities, creativity, and motivation. Positive learning behavior improves efficiency, discipline, and academic skills, while negative learning behavior results in a diminished grasp of the essence of learning and cultivates frustration during the learning journey. Thus, intervention conducted to observe changes in student learning behavior requires a valid learning behavior assessment tool. The multitude of factors directly influencing learning behavior necessitates researchers to identify the dominant factors affecting learning behavior. This study aims to analyze the validity and reliability of the Learning Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ). This research was conducted in two stages, namely developing a questionnaire and validity and reliability of the instrument. Samples were Banda Aceh junior high school students ( n = 787 ) . The validation was done by analyzing the content and constructs about the dimensions of learning behavior, motivation, and social interactions. The validity was tested using the Aiken Index [V], followed by items analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and internal reliability test. The results showed that the content validity of the LBQ was satisfactory, with an average validity of Necessity of Items (CVR) = 0.803, Relevancy of Items (S-CVI) = 0.824, and Clarity of Items (I-CVIs) = 0.826. The EFA revealed the KMO of 0.805, 0.789, and 0.759, respectively. The final results of the CFA test resulted in 48 valid items and indicated a fit model. The reliability test showed Cronbach’s Alpha of .851 (good), .723 (acceptable), and .685 (moderate), respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wati et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: