Determining Content Validity Instruments Shura Elements among Islamic Teachers in Primary Schools

The purpose of this study was to measure the content validity by expert panel instruments shura elements among Islamic teachers in primary schools. This study was conducted to study the content validity of the shura i nstrument through two-step process namely development and judgment. In the first step, the domain determination and instrumentation. While the second step, the content validity ratio and content validation index were performed. Suggestions of expert panel and item impact scores are used to examine the instrument face validity. A total of eight expert panels which consist of five professional experts in the field and three experts who served in the primary school field were appointed as instrument approval panels. The findings show that (N = 8, CVR = 0.75, CVI = ≥0.8) and 48 items were remained. The findings also clarify the origin and definition of content verification, content verification methods, the role of validity of content in legitimate arguments, and unresolved issues in content validation. Therefore, this version of instruments shura possesses desirable validity and reliability indices. The scale seems to measure specific aspects of quality in shura and suitable to be used as a measuring tool for the related future studies.


Introduction
Content validity was designed and developed by rationale analysts for testing and evaluation of contents by qualified experts in the domain (Allen & Yen, 2002). It refers to the extent to which a measure represents all facets of a given construct (Lawshe, 1975) to ensure that every item contained in the instruments which represent each domain is required and can be evaluated (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997;Kerlinger, 1986;Rahayah, 2008) and verified (Miller, Loveler & McIntire, 2013). This analysis process aims to provide assurance on the validity of the content which is a tool that is hoped to be used in other studies (Frank-Stromberg & Olsen, 2004. Content validity is very important to ensure high quality and reliable measurement (Polit, Beck & Owen, 2007. Thus, a set of specific standards such as the CVR should be undertaken to determine the validity of all of those items.

Literature Review
Shura is an Arabic word for consultation. The Quran and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) encourage Muslims to make decisions in their everyday affairs through consultations with those who will be affected by the decisions made (Esposito, 2003). Al-Buraey (1985) has defined shura as a management process or a tool used to achieve a collective decision. Azhary (1992) has also provided the meaning of shura which is a forum for exchanging ideas and insights, including making recommendations to resolve an issue before making a decision. This clearly demonstrates the importance of shura in the sight of Allah SWT and has proven that the practice is highly relevant in any forms of management in our lives. This shura practice is clearly emphasized through a verse in surah ali-Imran 3:159 which says "consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon to Allah".
Based on the adaptation of Ibn Taimiyah's thoughts on shura, PDS model (Affandi, 1982) and literature review, a few important elements in shura that need to be analysed have been identified. In this aspect, the elements of shura to be measured are (1) understanding (tafahum), (2) cooperation (ta'awun), (3) tolerance (tasamuh) (4) balance (tawazun), (5) fair (al-'adli), (6) love (mahabbah), (7) advice (nasihah) and (8) trust (amanah). Generally, studies that are related to syura have been discussed by several previous researchers such as Ahmad, 2006;Shahrul, 2013;Johdi, 2014;Md. Mohiden, 2013;Shahmila, 2013;Ain and Shahril, 2016;Suhana and Ahmad, 2017. Some of the elements in shura that were discussed by them are also discovered to be almost identical and thus used as surveying tools in this study. However, the researcher found that previous researchers did not thoroughly explain the experts' reviewing techniques performed on the validity of the instrument content used. They also did not report the validity test of the quantitative contents using specialized techniques such as CVR. Hence, based on this vulnerability gap, this study focuses more on testing the validity of the content in order to further strengthen the instrumentation by involving several expert panels using the techniques introduced by Lawshe (1975) as Content Validity Ratio (CVR).

Methodology
Step one: Instrument Development Instrument design is produced through three important processes: determining the content domain, content sampling and instrument construction. In this study, the researcher used a Table of Specification Instrument as one of the important procedures and the main guide in instrument development. According Gregory (2006), table of specification basically as an activity which enumerates the information and cognitive tasks on which examinees are to be assessed. For instruments, it is intended to ensure that questionnaire items are not missed and avoid negligence in planning which may cause only a portion of the constructs to be measure. It is also defined as a set of procedures that align the items to be tested through systematic planning (Aijaz, Aziz-un & Tayyaba, 2014). This method is important to determine the level of objectivity and the validity of the instrument (Najib, 2007). The details required in this table include constructs, variables, questions, traits, items and scales (Sahandri, Laily, Sharifah & Faizal, 2013). At the same time, literature review on the study was highly important as instructional guidance for the instrument (Faizal, Sahandari, Nizam, Mazlini, Noraini, Shafini & Lajiman, 2014). All of these steps have helped the researcher in determining the specific constructs to form question items based on the identified variables.
Step: Judgment This study uses quantitative method through questionnaire survey using one of purposive sampling techniques which is expert sampling as the appraiser. This sampling refers to the selection of expertise through individuals who are specialized in a particular field as samples of the study (Ilker, Sulaiman & Rukayya, 2016). Selection of appropriate samples is important for the purpose of obtaining positive and accurate information in the process of reviewing all of the items in details. This process is necessary for the purpose of enhancement, suggestions and views to ensure that they cover all contents of the domain that will be tested (Ghazali & Sufean, 2016;Noraini, 2010). The two main sources involved in the process of testing the validity of this study are comprised of professional panels in the field as well as field experts comprising of population representatives who are relevant to this study. To determine the number of expert panels, Nunnally (1978) has stated that two experts is sufficient. Three experts is sufficient for researches with specific cases such as difficulty in finding experts in the field (Gilbert, & Susan, 2016). However, according to Lynn (1986), the number of expert panels required in a study that is considered to be sufficient is around five to ten experts. Lawshe (1975) himself has set the number of experts to be at least four panels.
Thus, for this study, researchers have selected eight experts panel to be involved in the validity assessment process. All appointed professionals are those who are directly involved in the field and work in the field (Effendi et al., 2017). According to Rubio, Berg-Weger, Tebb, Lee & Rauch, (2003), the criteria that should be considered in the selection of expert panels depends on the area of expertise, work experience and the number of publications. There are also must be done on the basic criteria such as specific training, or professional experience on the subject matter (Shrotryia, 2019). In this study, the shortest expert panels' year of experience is 13 years while the longest is 30 years. Lawshe (1975) Generally, there are various evaluation methods have been developed to measure the validity of a quantitative content such as Cohen's Kappa (Cohen, 1960), Aiken (1980) and Fuzzy Delphi Method (Pipino & Gigch, 1985). However, the method is relatively complex when viewed from the angle of computerized calculations, tends to favor agreement among experts in general, involves several rounds in reaching an agreement among experts and employs the use of over 3 point Likert scale. The justification is, researchers have used the measurement methods of Content Validity Ratio (CVR) introduced by Lawshe (1975) for the purpose of empirically assessing the content validity of the instrument. It has been widely used in various research areas including healthcare, personnel psychology, organizational development, market research and also in the field of education (Wilson, Pan & Schumsky, 2012). The advantages of the CVR-inspired method by Lawshe (1975) include uses only three-point scale that refers to (essential, useful but not essential, and not necessary) as a scale of measurement, (Gilbert, & Susan, 2016;Hendryadi, 2014;Ayre & Scally, 2014) more focused, transparent, easyto-use, requires user-friendly computer calculations, has a critical cut-off schedule value for reference, (Lindell & Brandt, 1999) and has been recognized internationally (Wilson et al., 2012). Among the previous researchers who have chosen this method in their study are Aksorn and Hadikusomo (2007); Erdem (2009);Ford and Wroten (2006); Arif, Shukran & Diana (2013); Effendi, Hisyamsani, Normawati & Zamri, (2017) and Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora, (2008). In conclusion, quantitative procedures using CVR techniques are not only easy and practical, but also help the analysts to empirically employ all items to maintain items that actually represent the domain in concrete while abolishing items that do not reach a predetermined value.

Content Validity Ratio (CVR)
Content validity was determined by assessing the level of importance of each item which was built on a three-point scale: (1) Essential (2) Useful but not essential and (3) Not necessary. Responses from all panel experties were combined and the number indicating "essential" for each item was determined (Lawshe, 1975). The calculations were made using the formula CVR = [ne-(N / 2)] / (N / 2). This formula explains that CVR refers to the value of the item being built, ne is the number of expert panels who evaluates the item as essential and N is the total number of expert panels involved (N = 8). According to Lawshe (1975), CVR values are in the range of -1 to +1.00 If the value of CVR =˂ 0, it shows that less than half of the panel of experts value the item as "essential". If the value of CVR = 0, it shows that a part of the group of expert panels involved evaluated the item as being not important while some evaluated it as important "essential". If CVR ˃ 0, the value indicates that over half of the expert panels evaluated the item as essential "essential". The higher the value is from 0, the higher the legality of the content. Therefore, if CVR = 1.00 (it is adjusted to .99 for ease manipulation), it is clear that all panels of experts agreed to evaluate the item as "essential" and thus has high content validity. Number of expert panel and minimum value of CVR has been determined by Lawshe (1975) as shown in Table 1.

Content Validity Index (CVI)
We must have to measure objectivity, validity and realibility of that particular research tool to make standardised for all those tools (Patra & Guha, 2018;Hussin, & Hafit, (2018); Ofori, Lu, (2018). In this study, researcher will be emphasize on the procedure of calculation of content validity in terms of Content Validity Index (CVI) of a self-made questionnaire, which was used to measure level of shura instrument among Islamic education Teachers. After identifying the CVR of each item that needs to be retained, the Content Validity Index (CVI) test should be done by calculating the overall based on the number of items that remains (Lawshe, 1975). The value of CVI acceptance is different depending on the number of panel experts involved.

Validity Index of Each Item (I-CVIs)
To obtain content validity index of each item (I-CVIs), the number of those judging the item (rating 3) was divided by the number of content experts. While for relevancy, content validity index can be calculated both for item level (I-CVIs) and the scale-level (S-CVI). In item level, I-CVI is computed as the number of experts giving a (rating 3) to the relevancy of each item, divided by the total number of experts. According Zamanzadeh, Ghahramanian, Rassouli, Alavi and Nikanfar (2015), there are two methods for calculating it, One method requires universal agreement among experts (S-CVI/UA), but a less conservative method is averages the item-level CVIs (S-CVI/Ave).
It simply involves counting the mean of the CVR, which will total to 0.78 if an expert panel involves 3 or more (Gilbert, & Susan, 2016;Polit et al., 2007;Karageorgopoulos, 2014). However, for Lynn (1986), for a panel of experts that exceeds six, the CVI value received is greater than 0.78 whereas Tilden, Nelson & May, (1990) suggested the acceptable CVI value is above .70. Nevertheless, Davis (1992) suggested that CVI values that are greater than .80 to be better and researchers have adopted this designation. Acceptable items if the CVI higher than .79. If it is between .70 and .79, it requiring modification and if it less than 0.70, it is unacceptable or eliminated. In this study, the CVI value obtained exceeded .8 for a total of 8 expert panels (N = 8).

Results and Discussion
In the first round judgment, a total of 66 items were constructed in this research instrument to other 8 sub-construct along with the number of item as shown in Table 2.
The number of experts giving a rating either 3 The number of experts I-CVI= Furthermore, for the second judgment, researcher has been determined that reliability among experts is achieved using the Content Validation Index (CVI). This method takes into account the average level of relevance given by expert panels. To obtain a content validity index for each item, the number of those judging the related item was divided by the number of content experts (N = 8). This process is also carried out to clarify the item of the instrument. The agreement between the judges for the entire instrument was calculated only for relevance according to the overall average agreement approach. Table 6 shows the calculation of CVI for each item according construct successfully was retained.

Conclusion
Content validity in this study involves an objective and a systematic process. The researcher needs to perform two main stages which are designing the instrument and the assessment of the expert panels. Understanding content validity is important for the researcher to ensure that the instrument is suitable to be used as a measuring tool for the study population. As such, this study has contributed to the construction of istruments based on theory and related model in shura with different understanding and more dynamic way. Hence, this article provides a number of implications and research directions for academicians and educations practitioner for investigating the influence of shura on Islamic Education Teachers and their performance in organizational.