Application of Rasch Model on Resilience in Higher Education: An Examination of Validity and Reliability of Malaysian Academician Happiness Index (MAHI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This preliminary study was conducted to examine and verify the validity and reliability of the instrument on the Malaysian Academician Happiness Index (MAHI) on resilience. MAHI could be seen as a tool to measure the level of happiness and stress of academicians before determining how resilient the academicians were. Resilience can be defined as a mental ability of a person to recover quickly from illness or depression. MAHI instrument consisted of 66 items. The instrument was distributed to 40 academicians from three groups of universities which were the Focus University, Comprehensive University and Research University is using a survey technique. The instrument was developed to measure three main constructs which were the organization, individual and social that would affect the happiness and stress levels of academicians. This preliminary study employed the Rasch Measurement Model uses Winsteps software version 3.69.1.11. to examine the validity and reliability of the items. The results of the analysis of the MAHI instrument showed that the item reliability was 0.87, person reliability was 0.83 and value of Alpha Cronbach was 0.84. Meanwhile, misfit analysis showed that only there was one item with 1.46 logit that could be considered for dropping or needed improvement. Therefore, it highlighted that most of the items met the constructs’ need and can be used as a measurement indicator of MAHI. The implication of this instrument can help Malaysian academicians to be more resilient in facing challenges in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".