Measurement Invariance in Physical Education Learning Interest Instrument: Scoping Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26858/cpjok.v18i2.972Kata Kunci:
Measurement Invariance; Physical Education; Learning Interest; Psychometric Validation; Scoping Review.Abstrak
Learning interest is a key psychological construct influencing students’ participation, engagement, and achievement in Physical Education (PE). However, comparisons of learning interest across different student groups require evidence that the measurement instruments function equivalently. Measurement invariance has therefore become an essential psychometric criterion to ensure fairness, validity, and comparability in educational assessment. This study aimed to map and synthesize the existing evidence regarding the application of measurement invariance in Physical Education learning interest instruments through a scoping review approach. A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR framework. Literature published between 2015 and 2025 was searched in Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SINTA, and Garuda databases. Studies were included if they examined learning interest-related instruments in PE and reported measurement invariance analyses using Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA), Item Response Theory (IRT), Rasch modeling, or Differential Item Functioning (DIF). A total of 26 eligible studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings revealed that 92.3% of studies achieved configural invariance, 84.6% achieved metric invariance, 69.2% achieved scalar invariance, and 42.3% achieved strict invariance. MGCFA was the most frequently used analytical approach (65.4%). Gender was the most commonly examined grouping variable (73.1%), followed by educational level, age, and cultural background. The reviewed instruments generally demonstrated acceptable psychometric quality, although evidence for higher-order invariance remained limited. Measurement invariance has become increasingly integrated into the validation of PE learning interest instruments. While most instruments demonstrate satisfactory structural equivalence, further research is needed to strengthen scalar and strict invariance and expand cross-cultural validation. These efforts are essential for ensuring accurate, fair, and comparable assessments of students’ learning interest in Physical Education.
Referensi
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2018). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4
Chen, F. F. (2017). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2018). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507
Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2019). Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X499084
He, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2016). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111
Howard, J. L., Bureau, J. S., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Principles-and-Practice-of-Structural-Equation-Modeling/Rex-Kline/9781462551910
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2019). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., & Craven, R. G. (2020). Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance in educational research. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 987–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09540-0
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., et al. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2017). Measurement invariance in international surveys: Categorical indicators and fit measure performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 30(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1243540
Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2020). Multiple-group invariance with categorical outcomes using updated guidelines. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2021). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care & Research, 57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23108
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Van de Schoot, R., Schmidt, P., De Beuckelaer, A., Lek, K., & Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M. (2015). Measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01064
Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Achievement values: Interactions, interventions, and future directions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd ed., pp. 116–134). Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Handbook-of-Competence-and-Motivation/Elliot-Dweck-Yeager/9781462536030
Yu, C. Y., & Muthén, B. O. (2020). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000215
Zumbo, B. D. (2017). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2026 Jamaluddin (Author)
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
