Journal of Studies in Social Sciences
ISSN 2201-4624
Volume 7, Number 1, 2014, 1-18

Psychometric Item Analysis and Validation of Indonesian Version
of Intragroup Conflict and Group Atmosphere Scale
Dwi Tyastuti1,2, Hirotaka Onishi1, Fika Ekayanti2 and Kiyoshi Kitamura1
1International Research Center for Medical Education (IRCME), Graduate School of Medicine,the University of Tokyo, Japan
2Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta,

Indonesia
Corresponding author: Dwi Tyastuti, Faculty of Medicine, Central Building, 7-3-1 Hongo,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033

Abstract. Interprofessional education (IPE) is a learning model that brings together a variety ofprofessions. This learning has the potential for the emergence of group conflict. It was needed thetools to evaluate the dynamics of conflict that arose within the group in IPE. The objective of thisstudy was to validate the scales of intragroup conflict (IC) and group atmosphere (GA) in
Indonesian version. A survey was conducted at the State Islamic University, Jakarta, Indonesia,
in 2011 and we collected 302 valid questionnaires from medical, nursing, pharmacy and publichealth students. The IC and GA scale were adapted in Indonesian language through the crosscultural adaptation process. The psychometric properties were analyzed by both exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA of IC scale on 11-items and
GA scale on 8-items accounted for 65.1% and 62.0%, respectively, of the total variance. The final
model of IC scale is 10 items three-factors and GA scale is of 8-items three-factors. Both scales
demonstrated the satisfactory reliability, adequate convergent validity and acceptable indices ofgoodness of fit. The study suggested that the Indonesian version of IC and GA scale are valid toassess the attitudes to manage intragroup conflict during IPE.
Keyword: cross-cultural, validity, reliability, factor analysis, intragroup conflict.

© Copyright 2014 the authors.

1

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

2

Introduction
Interprofessional education (IPE) was defined as a learning concept that“occurs when two or more professions learn with, from and about each other toimprove collaboration and the quality of care” (Barr, 2002). This concept is alearning model that brings together a various of professions, and has thepotential for the emergence of a conflict within the group. Conflict is the result of
tension between team members because of real perceived differences (Wall &Callistar, 1995; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
In medical and health teams, the emerging of conflict among professions is
triggered by the unclear or overlapping tasks, roles, and responsibility. However,the conflict can be resolved and become the positive resources in the group if
each profession understand their roles and responsibility and skilled in conflict
management to accomplish the task group (Greer, Sayqi, Aaldering & de Dreu,
2012).
IPE is a new learning concept in Indonesia. In addition, the studies about
the dynamics of conflict in the IPE group are limited. There is tremendous
potential for research towards the impact of collaborative interprofessional
practice on health team performance. Therefore, we developed a model of IPE tolearn the dynamics of conflict that arose in the group during interprofessional
practice and it was needed a tool to measure it. We conducted a study ofpsychometric items and validation scale of intragroup conflict in Indonesianversion. The scale is developed by Jehn (1993, 1995) and is a valid and reliable
scale. In addition, we also adapted the scale of atmosphere in-group (Chatman,
1991; Shah & Jehn, 1993) to assess students' perception on trust in group,
respect to others and open discussion in the group. To our knowledge, there is no
information about the scales in Indonesia.
Therefore, the aim of the study is to describe the psychometric properties,
reliability and validity of the Indonesian version of intragroup conflict and groupatmosphere scale, adapted from the original scale through a cross-culturalprocess (Guillemin, Bombardier & Beaton, 1993), order to be able to assess the
dynamic of conflict in-group among undergraduate students who engage ininterprofessional learning.

3

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Methods
Instruments
We validated two scales that included (1) scale of atmosphere in-group(GA) (Chatman, 1991; Jehn, 1995) and Scale of conflict in group (IC) (Shah &Jehn, 1993). Both scales was used to measure the conflict among members ingroup and group development. The original study showed that the scales had agood reliability and validity (Shah & Jehn, 1993; Jehn, 1995; Bayerl, 2008). The
GA scale was made of eight positive statements and CI scale consisted of 11
negative statements. Participants were asked to indicate their strength ofagreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1=very strongly disagree, 4=neutral,
7= very strongly agree).
Cross-cultural adaptation process
Cross-cultural adaptation process was applied to adapt the original
version of all scales that were used in this study in the Indonesian Language
according to guideline by Guillemin (Guillemin et al., 1993). The process wasstarted by forward and backward translations (van de Vijver & Hambleton,
1996). The translation was proficient in both the Indonesian and English
languages.
The first phase was the translation of the questionnaire (forward
translation) by two language experts. The second phase was aimed to assess thecorrespondence between the original version and the translated version. The
scale in the Indonesian version was re-translated into English (backward
translation) by different language experts from the first phase to check forinconsistencies. Researchers evaluated both the original questionnaire and thequestionnaire after being translated backward. This was carried out to check theinconsistencies.
Statistic analysis
Evaluation of a scale or questionnaires involved reliability and validity
tests of the scale (Bagozzi & al., 1988; Malhotra & Birks, 2007). The reliability

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences4

and validity testsof the Indonesian version questionnaires were carried out by
applying exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) method.
Criteria for assessment of overall of fit model included (1) loading factor
for each items >.7; (2) approximate fit indexes >.90; (3) standard of root meansquare residual <.08; (4) all items in regression weights are significant; (5) freefrom Heywood Case (a negative value of item loading or variance for each items)(Bagozzi & al., 1988; Boomsma, 2000; Hair, 2005; Kline, 2005). For approximate
fit indexes, the Normed Fit Index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI) and theComparative Fit Index (CFI) exceeds .90 would indicate model fit(Byrne, 2001;
Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The value of RMS (Root Mean Square) represented
the square root of the average or mean of the covariance residuals was lessthan .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993)and ideally less than .05 (Steiger, 1990) but
the upper confidence interval of the RMS should not exceed .08 (Hu & Bentler,
1998). The relative chi-square is the chi square index divided by degree of
freedom which values should be less than 2 or 3 (Kline, 2005; Ullman, 2006).
We tested reliabilities of scales by assessing internal consistency reliability,
item reliability and constructs reliability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair, 2005).
Cronbach`s  was performed to measure internal consistency reliability
calculated by using SPSS Windows 16.0. Cronbach`s alpha more than 0.07
described a good factor (Hair, 2005), however Cronbach`s or alpha value of 0.06
and more was considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1967; Johnson & Stevens, 2001).
Assessment of internal structure model included test of convergent validity anddiscriminant validity. Convergent validity was a test to assess construct validity
being measured that included composite (constructs) reliability (CR) and averagevariance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair, 2005). If the AVE isless than .50, then the variance due to measurement error is greater than thevariance due to the construct. In this case, the convergent validity of theconstruct is questionable” (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For composite reliability, athreshold value of 0.50 was set for testing the convergent validity (Bagozzi & al.,
1988; Chau, 1997; Hair, 2005).

5

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Discriminant validity was an indicator to assess unidimentional of
constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Chau, 1997; Hair, 2005).

Fornell andLarcker (1981) presented a formula for assessing discriminant validity of two or
more factors by comparing the AVE of each construct with the shared variance
between constructs. If the AVE for each construct is greater than its sharedvariance with any other construct, discriminant validity is supported (Fornell &Larcker, 1981; Hair, 2005; Farrell, 2010).
To compare the difference in measurement model and to indicate the fit
model, there were two indicators for selecting a model: (1) if the measurement
model was nested model, then the study employed X2 difference test (Kahn,
2006) and (2) otherwise, by applying the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion)index which AIC has no such restriction (Anderson, 2008). The final model ofIndonesian version was the model that had the lowest AIC score among allmeasurement models.
All analyses were conducted using SPSS versions 16.0 and AMOS 18.
Participants
To obtain a reliable and valid scale using EFA and CFA, larger samples
were needed. There were no consensuses about number of samples among
researcher. Some guidelines about number of samples were proposed such asargument from Kline (2005) and Hair (2005) suggested minimum number ofsamples was 10-20 times the number of parameters (Hair, 2005; Kline,2005).Thus, using the guideline from Kline (2005) and Hair (2005), this study
needed at least 110 participants to test the Indonesian version of IC and GA
scale that consisted of 11 and 8 items, respectively. The survey was done fromthe 20th to 28th February 2011 among first and second-year students frommedicine,nursing,

pharmacyandpublichealth.

We

distributed

350

questionnaires and 320 questionnaires were returned.
Data collection
Data was collected by distributing the questionnaire in classroom over a
two-week period. A faculty member made a schedule to set the day, time andJournal of Studies in Social Sciences

6

length of time required to fill out the questionnaire. Faculty members who were
not involved in teaching activities assisted in the distribution and collection ofquestionnaires.
Ethical consideration
All students gave written and verbal informed consent after receiving both
written and verbal information about this study. The Ethics Committees of boththe University of Tokyo and the State Islamic University, Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia, approved the research.
ResultTotal of 302 data (94% from 320) were valid and have met the minimum
criteria of total sample for EFA and CFA analysis. Excisions of several
questionnaires were done in the analysis of this study that was aimed to meetthe requirements of analysis either by using EFA or CFA. A total of 18
questionnaires were excluded for the following reasons: (1) 7 questionnaires had
missing items and result of the missing value analysis (MVA) showed that
MCAR values were >0.05, which means that the missing value is not random, (2)for analyzing outliers univariate, 11 questionnaires had Z-score values of lessthan -3 and more than +3 (Kline, 2005).
For analysis of data normality, after excluding non-valid questionnaires,
total of 302 samples was normal indicated by the value of skewness<3 (between 0.795 to +0.950) and kurtosis <10 (-1.800 to +0.934) (Kline, 2005). The presenceof multicollinearity of medium level in the data was indicated by a value of 32
from sample moment calculation (Montgomery, Peck & Vining, 2001), and there
was no singularity (r>.95) on those items from the analysis result by AMOS.
Distribution of respondents by gender showed that the number of female
students (n=196, 65.3%) was higher than male students (n=104, 34.7%). The
number of medical students (61.3%) who participated in this study was greaterthan those of public health students (13.3%), nursing students (13.3%), andpharmacy students (12.0%). Second year (72.0%) who participated in this study
was higher than first year students (28.0%).

7

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

The total samples (n=302) were randomly divided into 2 split-half samples
by SPSS 16.0, number of samples for each analysis (EFA or CFA) was 151
samples. Data from the sub-sample (n=151) were analyzed by EFA withmaximum likelihood methods and promax rotation.

The second sub-samples(n=151) were used for the analysis of factor structure using CFA.
Result of factor analysis of IC scale
EFA result of IC scale
All items of the Indonesian version IC scale was included in analysis
factor by EFA based on result of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) MeasureSampling Adequacy for 0.906, Bartlett's Test of Spefericity (α) was significant(<0.001), and the value of the correlation (r) of the anti-image correlation for all
items were between 0.766 – 0.930 (standard r>.55). By promax rotation method,the IC scale formed two constructs based on eigenvalue >1 and scree plot graphs.
Unlike the original version (Jehn, 1995), constructs of the Indonesianversion consisted of first construct (formed by items 1-5) and second construct(built by items 6 to 11). Only item 8 (there are differences of opinions in my team)yielded factor loading < 0.05 (see Table 1). In addition, factor that was accounted
for the greatest variance was first factor (58.5%) of the total variance (67.0%).
Factor loading of the first factor ranged from .689 – .891 and the item withthe highest factor loading was item 3 (There are tensions among members of myteam). On the second factor, factor loading of each item on this subscale was
between .335 - .839 and item 9 (There are disagreements about who should dowhat in my team) possessed the largest factor loading (.839). Internal consistency
test showed that Cronbach’s alpha of IC scale was 0.90 (first factor) and 0.84
(second factor).

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

8

Table 1.Mean, SD and loading factor of EFA result of IC scale(n=151)
Mean

Subscale

(SD)

1

2

.689

.315

.875

.542

.891

.509

.840

.500

.731

.568

.689

.612

.728

.704

.149

.335

.593

.839

.720

.800

.620

.831

Total variance explained (67.0%)

58.5

10.5

Reliability of each sub-scale (α total .91)

.90

.84

Items
1.There is a lot of friction among team members.

4.54 (1.15)

2.

There are personality conflicts evident in my team.

4.92 (1.20)

3.

There are tensions among members of my team.

5.07 (1.13)

4.

There are emotional conflicts among members of my team.

5.18 (1.08)

5.

Members in my team disagree with opinions regarding the work being
done.

4.95 (0.60)

6.

There are conflicts about ideas in my team.

4.64 (1.05)

7.

There is a conflict about work in my team.

4.78 (0.99)

8.

There are differences of opinions in my team.

3.54 (0.99)

9.

There are disagreements about who should do what in my team.

4.34 (1.02)

10. There is a conflict about task responsibilities in my team.

4.61 (1.03)

11. There is a disagreement about resource allocation in my team.

4.49 (0.99)

CFA result of IC scale
Initial model: The initial model was a measurement model derived from theresults of EFA. The two-factor model with 11 items (IC-A1: items 1-5; IC-A2:
items 6-11) evidenced that t-value of all items was significant (p <.001) and all
loading factor of items were >0.5 (except item 8), suggesting that item 8 was not
represented in the construct being measured. Similarly, measurement model of
11 items three-factor model (referred to the original study; IC-B1, IC-B2, IC-B3)
demonstrated unfit model due to the item 8 has low loading factor (0.298).
Therefore, the initial model and the 11 items three-factor model were not a fit
model for Indonesian context since there was a value of factor loading <0.5 (Hair,
2005). Hence, the modification of the measurement model at the later stage wasdone by eliminating the item 8.

9Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Table 2. Multilevel CF: reliability, validity and fit indices of initial and modified
models (n=151)
Indicator

Reliability-Validity

Index Fit



CR

AVE

CMIN/df

NFI

TLI

CFI

RMSEA

SRMR

IC-A1 (item 1 – 5)*

.89

.89

.63

IC-A2 (item 6 – 11)

.84

.85

.51

2.29

.91

.93

.95

.09

.05

144.36

1.979

.93

.95

.96

.08

.05

131.58

1.864

.94

.96

.97

.08

.04

106.76

3.988

.91

.90

.93

.15

.05

111.76

2.855

.97

.97

.98

.08

.02

59.66

AIC

IC Scale
1. Initial Model (11 items)

2. Second Model (11 items)

3.

.91

IC-B1 (item 1 – 4)

.89

.89

.66

IC-B2 (item 5 – 8)†

.69

.75

.47

IC-B3 (item 9 – 11)

.89

.85

.65

Third

Model

(10

items).92

IC-C1 (item 1 – 4)

.89

.89

.69

IC-C2 (item 5 – 7)

.86

.83

.69

IC-C3 (item 9 – 11)

.89

.85

.72

.92

.94

.67

GA-B1 (item 1 – 3)

.87

.88

.71

GA-B2 (item 4 – 5)

.84

.84

.73

GA-B3 (item 6 – 8)

.91

.91

.77

GA Scale
1. Initial Model (8 items)
GA-A1 (Item 1 – 8)

.91

2. Second Model (8 items)(*). (†)= item 5 of IC scale has loading <0.5
Initial model=based on EFA result; Second model=based on original study; Third
model=based on CFA result
Three-factor version, 10 items (Figure 1): The 10 items three-factor model(RC was represented by items 1 to 4; TC consisted of items 5 to 7; PC formed byitems 9 to 11) was analyzed and all values of factor loading ranged between .60
and .90. Notwithstanding Hugh (2001) suggested that the best loading factor
was >.7 however the loading factor >.5 was also quite satisfactory, especially inthe explorative research(Johnson & Stevens, 2001). Therefore, we retained allitems (10 items) for further analysis and modification of models. Table 2 showedJournal of Studies in Social Sciences

10

that value of the Normed chi-square (32, N = 151) = 59.63) was significant(p<.005). Similarly, the relative chi square (1.864) and GOF indices (TLI=.961,
NFI=.943, CFI=.973, RMSEA=0.080 and SRMR=0.039) met the criteria as wellas produced AIC score (106.76) lower than other model, indicating that the 10
items three-factor model was a fit model.
Figure 1. Measurement model of 10 items three-factor model of IC scale

IC-C1= Relationship Conflict (RC); IC-C2=Task Conflict (TC);
IC-C3=Process Conflict (PC)11

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Assessment of internal structure of IC fit model
Reliability analysis pointed out that the overall Cronbach`s alpha for the
initial model and modified model was 0.91 and 0.92. By deleting item 8, theoverall Cronbach’s alpha of modified model was higher than the initial model.
Cronbach`s alpha values of 10 items three-factor model ranged from 0.86 to 0.89
(see Table 2). Those results denoted that the modified model (three-factor model)
had a high level of internal consistency to measure intragroup conflict.
Furthermore, convergent validity of fit model showed that CR (constructreliability) values for each factor was >0.7 and RC factor produced highest CR
than other factors. This study showed that the reliability values of all constructs
by either Cronbach’s alpha or CR were almost similar. AVE (average varianceextracted) values for the factors were found as an acceptable level that ranged
from 0.69 to 0.72.
Focusing in Table 3, this study showed questionable discriminant validity
for factor of TC since AVE of TC (0.69) was lower than square correlation
between TC and PC (0.70). Only factor of RC and PC indicated acceptablediscriminant validity because the AVE was greater than the squared correlation.
The results evidenced that RC and PC were unidimentional.
Table 3. The discriminant validity on three-factor model of IC scale (n=151)
Three factor model

RC

TC

RC

0.69*

TC

0.67

0.69*

PC

0.59

0.70

PC

0.72*

Notes: *Diagonal elements report of the AVE, and other matrix entries
report the squared correlation estimation between them
RC=relationship conflict; TC=task conflict; PC=professional conflict.

Result of factor analysis of GA scale
EFA result of GA scale
EFA on 8 items was accepted because three measures met the criteria.
Firstly, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure sampling adequacy was 0.907,
above the recommended benchmark of 0.6. Secondly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

12(α) was significant(2 (28) = 1643, p < 0.0001). Thirdly, the diagonals of the antiimage correlation matrix for all items were between 0.866-0.938, above thestandard of 0.5. By using promax rotation with maximum likelihood, EFA of GA
scale produced only one factor (Table 4) and the total variance was 62.0%. The
factor loadings for items ranged from 0.628 to 0.837 and the item with thehighest factor loading was item 6 (in my team we discuss issues openly). As to theinternal consistency test, Cronbach's α had a value of .92.
Table 4. Mean, SD and loading factor of EFA result of GA Scale (n=151)
Items

Mean (SD)

Subscale 1

1. Members in my team trust each other.

5.25 (0.84).628

2. Members in my team feel comfortable delegating to 5.14 (0.79).648

others in the team.
3. Team members are truthful and honest.

5.25 (0.78).787

4. Team members respect each other.

5.40 (0.82).825

5. Team members respect each others’ ideas.

5.40 (0.87).768

6. In my team we discuss issues openly.

5.36 (0.78).837

7. In my team we communicate openly.

5.40 (0.78).794

8. In my team conflicts are dealt with openly.

5.20 (0.87).714

Total variance explained

62.0

Reliability of each sub-scale.92

CFA Result of GA scale
The EFA’s analysis was followed by CFA for the Indonesian version to
examine reliability and validity of the scale and generate fit model of theIndonesian version.
Initial model: In this study, an initial model (which was consisted of eightitems) was a measurement model derived from EFA result. The initial model
demonstrated loading factors that met criteria and the indices of goodness of fit
index (Normed chi-square, NFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR) met the benchmark.
Three-factor version, 8 items (Figure 2): The 8 items three-factor model issimilar to the original model. In this study, the 8 items three-factor model (TR13Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

was represented by items 1 to 3; RO consisted of items 4 and 5; OD formed byitems 6 to 8) was analyzed and all values of factor loading ranged between .76
and .91. Fit indices showed that all criteria of fit index met the criteria and AIC
score of 8 items three-factor model (AIC=59.66) was lower than one-factor model(AIC=111.76), see Table 1.
Figure 2. Measurement model of 8 items three-factor of GA scale

GA-B1= Trust (TR); GA-B2= Respect each other (RO); GA-B3= Open Discussion (OD)

Assessment of internal structure of GA fit model
Reliability analysis pointed out that the overall alpha coefficient of the GA
scale model was 0.92, and alpha coefficient for the factors were more thanstandard. Furthermore, the convergent validity that indicated by AVE and CRJournal of Studies in Social Sciences14

were satisfied. The CR of each construct was satisfied (>0.7) and AVE for all
factors met criterion.
Table 5 showed the discriminant validity of three-factor model of GA scale.
The study indicated the questionable discriminant validity for all constructs
because the AVE of those constructs (TR, RO, and OD) were lower than squarecorrelation between each constructs. The results evidenced that TR, RO and OD
were two-dimensional.
Table 5. The discriminant validity on three-factor model of GA scale (n=151)
Three factor model

TR

RO

TR

0.71*

RO

0.85

0.77*

OD

0.71

0.77

OD

0.73*

Notes: *Diagonal elements report of the AVE, and other matrix entries
report the squared correlation estimation between them.
TR= Trust; RO=respect each other; OD=open discussion

Discussions
This was the first Indonesia study to conduct cross-cultural adaptationand psychometric testing of scales for assessment of attitude to deal with conflictand improve group atmosphere by medical, nursing, pharmacy and public healthstudents, namely the intragroup conflict (IC) scale and group atmosphere (GA)scale. In this study we found that the Indonesian version of the IC and GA scaledemonstrated to be a reliable and valid scale.
Through CFA processes, the EFA result of both scales were tested and did
not offer the most desirable fit to our data (see Table 2). The item “there aredifferences of opinions in my team” of IC scale was deleted from this study since
factor loading of this item was 0.335, which means that only 34% of variation inthis item is explained by IC scale. The reconstructing of IC scale measurement
model generated 10 items three-factor model which can be labeled as
relationship conflict (RC), task conflict (TC) and process conflict (PC) similar tothe original study (Jehn, 1995). Likewise, on GA scale, reconstructing themeasurement model by using the original measurement model yielded 8 items

15

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

three-factor model which can be labeled as factor of trust (TR), respect to other(RO) and open discussion (OD) refer to the original study (Shah & Jehn, 1993).
Referring to criteria of the fitted CFA model (Brown, 2006), we canconclude that the final CFA with this three-factor model of both scales showedsatisfactory data. Absolute fit indices in this study consisted of Normed chisquare, NFI, TLI, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR, and all generated acceptable results(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Hair, 2005). Similarly, the fit model hadthe lowest AICscore among all measurement models (Anderson, 2008). These results indicatedthat the fit model had a very good fitness to our data.
Internal consistency of fit model of both scales, as determined by the alphacoefficient were adequate in this study (alpha coefficient = 0.92 (IC scale) and
0.91 (GA scale) for the entire sample group. The results presented in Table 2
attested to the high internal consistency of the instrument in which all values
were above the suggested 0.70 level for scale robustness (Nunnally & Bernstein,1994). However, the internal consistency of IC subscales (ranged from .83 to .89)
was lower than the original scale (ranged from .93 to .94) (Shah & Jehn, 1993;
Jehn, 1995). Convergent validity of fit model of both scales showed that the AVE
and CR of all factors yielded acceptable values (Chau, 1997; Farrell, 2010). It
means that all factors are well explained by its observed variables.
Nevertheless, we have the discriminant validity issues. Test of
discriminant validity of IC scale yielded unidimensional constructs for RC andPC whereas the construct of TC was two-dimensional. While the discriminant
validity test of GA scale demonstrated that all factors were two-dimensional.
The results indicated that some observed variables correlated more highly withvariables outside their factor than with the variables within their factor. This
fact showed that a high alpha value does not necessarily indicate that a factor isunidimensional. The alpha coefficient is not sufficient for measuring thedimensionality of a construct or factor (Tavako & Dennick, 2011). This isevidenced by factor of TC, TR, RO and OD in which the alpha coefficients of
those factors were high but those factors were multidimesional.
Several factors contributed to the emergence of discriminant validity
problems and low factor loading. In this study, the existence of cultural diversity

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

16

among respondents such as gender, ethnic, belief and local cultures (Pashaei,
Razaghi, Foroushani & Tabatabaei, 2013) as well as students’ experiences inworking in group (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003) may have influenced the
responses to the items on Indonesian version. In addition, the effect oftranslation into a particular language played a significant role in this study andthe role of cultural differences must be considered (Pashaei et al., 2013).
Although the fit model of IC and GA scale of Indonesian versions arefavorable, there are several limitations. First, our sample was confined to aschool of health professionals in Indonesia that might not represent all
Indonesian students. The findings may be difficult to generalize because thesample was only derived from one institution. Second, the sampling method was
non-probability, which may produce sampling bias. Nonetheless, the sample
represented students from various multicultural and social backgrounds, whichis reassuring. Third, this psychometric study in Indonesian context resulted thequestionable discriminant validity of adapted scale.
Conclusion
The present study contributes to the literature in a couple of ways. First,
the translation and adaptation of intragroup scale and group atmosphere scale
into the Indonesian language by a cross-cultural adaptation process was
successful and the Indonesian version produced the CFA fit model with thehighest reliability, the satisfied convergent validity and the acceptable goodnessof fit index. Second, an item of Indonesian version intragroup conflict scale
exhibited misfit measurement within the model and was excluded. Consequently,
further revision and assessment of the intragroup conflict psychometricproperties in the Indonesian version is recommended.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank all students at Faculty of Medicine and Health
Sciences (FMHS), Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta,
Indonesia who participated in this study.

17

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

References[1]

Anderson, D. R. (2008). Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences. Colorado State
University Fort Collins, CO, Springer Science.

[2]

Bagozzi, R. & al., e. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74-94.

[3]Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74-94.

[4]Barr, H. (2002). Interprofessional education : Today, yesterday and tomorrow. Learning
and Teaching support Network: Centre for Health Sciences and Practice.

[5]

Bayerl, P. S. (2008). Co-learning in health care: Evaluation of the interprofessional training
program at the Bedlam Longitudinal Clinic.

[6]

Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation
Modelling 7(3): 461-483.

[7]

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, The
Guilford Press.

[8]

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing
Structural Equation Models. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage: 136-162.

[9]

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Strutural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL:
comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument.
International Journal of Testing 1(1): 55-86.

[10] Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Adminstrative Science Quarterly 36: 459-484.
[11] Chau, P. Y. K. (1997). Reexaming a model for evaluating information center succes using a
structural equation modelling approach. Decision Sciences 28(2): 309-334.
[12] De Dreu, C. K. W. & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task Versus Relationship Conflict, Team
Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88(4): 741-749.
[13] Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan,
Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research 63: 324-327.
[14] Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation of Structural Equation Model with
Unobservables Variable and Measurement Error. Journal of Marekting Research 18(1): 3950.
[15] Greer, L. L., Sayqi, O., Aaldering, H. & de Dreu, C. (2012). Conflict in medical teams:
opportunity or danger. Medical Education 46(10): 935-942.
[16] Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C. & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of healthrelated quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin
Epidemiol 46(12): 1417-1432.
[17] Hair, J. F. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences18[18] Hu, L.-t. & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity
to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods 3(4): 424-453.
[19] Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 256-282.
[20] Johnson, B. & Stevens, J. J. (2001). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of theschool level environment questionnaire (SLEQ). Learning Environment Research 4: 325344.
[21] Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, andpractice principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist 34(5): 684-718.
[22] Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York,
Guilford.
[23] Malhotra, N. K. & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing Research: an applied orientation. Essex,
UK, Person Education International/Prentice Hall.
[24] Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A. & Vining, G. G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression
analysis. New York, Wiley.
[25] Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, McGraw-Hill.
[26] Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, McGraw-Hill.
[27] Pashaei, T., Razaghi, O. M., Foroushani, A. R. & Tabatabaei, M. G. (2013). Assessing thevalidity and reliability of the Farsi version of inventory drug-taking situations. Iran J
Psychiatry 8(2): 80-85.
[28] Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation
Modeling. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[29] Shah, P. P. & Jehn, K. A. (1993). The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group
Decision and Negotiation 2: 149-165.
[30] Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural Model Evaluation and Modification : An Internal
Estimation Approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25(2): 173-180.
[31] Tavako, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journalof Medical Education 2: 53-33.
[32] Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving
forward. Journal of Personality Assessment 87(1): 35-50.
[33] van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practicalguidelines European Psychologist 1(2): 89-99.
[34] Wall, J. A. & Callistar, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its Management. Journal of Management
21: 515-558.