Application of Aiken’s V Method for Validating Research Instruments in an Ethnomathematics Study of Data and Probability Concepts

Abstract

Ethnomathematics research requires research instruments that can accurately describe cultural phenomena while generating valid data. Instruments with insufficient validity may produce biased information and consequently affect the quality of research findings. This highlights content validity as a crucial stage before an instrument is used for data collection. This study aims to describe the application of Aiken’s V method in assessing the content validity of research instruments developed for an ethnomathematics study on data and probability concepts in Buddhist temple tourism sites in Klaten Regency, Indonesia. This study employed a quantitative–qualitative approach in which the analyses were conducted sequentially and interpreted jointly. Quantitative data were analyzed using Aiken’s V method, while qualitative data were analyzed through descriptive qualitative analysis. The research object consisted of four research instruments: an ethnomathematics interview guide, a data and probability interview guide, an ethnomathematics observation guide, and a data and probability observation guide. The instruments were evaluated by three expert validators with expertise in mathematics education, statistics, and ethnomathematics. The validation process used a five-point Likert scale covering relevance to the research objectives, alignment with the instrument blueprint, language appropriateness, clarity of wording, and suitability to the ethnomathematics context and the concepts of data and probability. Content validity was measured using Aiken’s V index for each instrument item. In addition to the quantitative analysis, the validators’ comments and suggestions were analyzed descriptively to provide a basis for revising the instruments. The application of Aiken’s V method provided objective information regarding the validity level of each item and identified parts of the instruments that required refinement. The results showed that, overall, the research instruments achieved content validity ranging from valid to highly valid. The qualitative analysis further revealed that all three validators consistently recommended revising several abstract terms, such as acquisition, accumulation, epistemological, and historical, into more operational indicators that would be easier for informants to understand. Therefore, the validation results indicate that the research instruments are suitable for use in ethnomathematics research after refinement of the item wording, thereby improving data credibility and the quality of research findings.