Focus Groups as a Questionnaire Pretest for Surveys in Cross-Cultural and Cross-National Comparative Research

As a research method, focus groups have methodological advantages for understanding the views and behavior of group members or for understanding the social system as a whole, since it covers the interaction between people, groups, and the interpersonal environment quite well that widely recognized in the social sciences. These advantages are introduced in the context of mixed-methods, including conducting a survey together with focus groups as a pretest questionnaire in a comparative perspective in cross-national and cross-culture research. Focus groups provide to reach construct equivalence and elaborate an appropriate context-oriented language for questionnaire questions. Using the focus groups in this way can be an effective approach to overcoming the initial limited ability of surveys to valid measure more complex socially constructed concepts, the meaning of which can vary significantly from one group to another, especially from a comparative perspective in cross-national and cross-culture research. Using focus groups, data is collected in a more natural way, that is, more close to the real world, while the generalization is ensured by a detailed description of specific conditions, participants, and research environment. In addition, the discussion group is a miniature thinking society, and unlike dyadic interviews or surveys, focus group discussions give participants the opportunity to express their opinions, discuss their views and opinions with other participants, listen to other peoples opinions, disagree or to develop thoughts by reasoning out loud - this is similar to what happens in real life. This increased awareness about the described advantages of the approach for cross-cultural and cross-national comparative research likely contributes to its more active employ.

Development and Validation of a Scale for Interaction between Parents and Coaches of Middle and High School Golf Players

The purpose of this study was to develop a measurement tool for the interaction between parents and coaches of middle and high school golfers, and to verify its validity. A total of 563 parents participated in the study. Based on the results of preliminary item production, item analysis, reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis, identification factor analysis, job uniformity analysis, and potential mean comparison analysis, the initial 70 items were constructed according to the conceptualization of parent–coach interactions. The first and second item reduction processes and preliminary surveys were conducted through expert meetings to produce the final 40 items of parent–coach interactions. After eliminating 20 items through question analysis, reliability analysis, and exploratory factor analysis, the final three factors of parent–coach interaction were extracted, and the conformity index for the middle and high school golfers’ parent-to-coach interaction tool was checked. Then, to ensure the external validity of the developed parent–coach interaction measurement tool, a construct equivalence analysis was conducted to demonstrate that the tool can be applied equally to parents and coaches. In summary, the tools for measuring the interaction between the middle and high school golfers’ parents and coaches were developed in 20 questions, three factors for communication, qualification, and support, and it was confirmed that the developed measuring tools could all be applied equally through a latent mean analysis. Parents and coaches are key variables that can affect a player’s performance; thus parents and coaches’ interaction measuring tools can be provide positive information not only for golfers but also for players of various other sports.

Ethnic Identity: A Study of Construct Equivalence

This research aimed to examine the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure’s (MEIM 1992) adequacy to explore Indonesian youth’s ethnic identity. Hence MEIM 1992 was adapted into MEIM Indonesia through translation-back-translation method. Involving 448 (179 or 40% male and 269 or 60% female) students aged 17 – 28 years (Mean = 19.87; SD = 1.30) with different ethnic backgrounds in a private university in Yogyakarta as respondents, EFA with SPSS showed that the MEIM Indonesia measured one factor as MEIM 1992 does, CFA with R- studio showed that the one factor model fitted the data (factor loadings ranged from 0.323 to 0.750), its items had r it -s that ranged from 0.32 to 0.64, as a scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84, showed a concurrent validity coefficient r =0.23 (p < 0.01) with the RSeS Indonesia as a criterion, and was able to differentiate the levels of ethnic identity of sample pairs of Javanese, Bataks, Dayaks, Chinese, Florinese and a mixture of two or three ethnic groups. Hence, the MEIM Indonesia was conceptually and empirically proven to have construct equivalence with the 1992 MEIM as well as to show adequacy and was coined Skala Identitas Suku Bangsa (SISB).