Analysis of Friendship Activity and Adjective Measurement Implementation for Children with Intellectual Disability in Unified Sports

Öz

The purpose of this study is to analyze the needs of trainers about the measurement instruments of friendship activity and adjective in the child intellectual disability in unified sports based on the implementation and condition of instrument availability. The analysis of the measurement conditions of friendship and activity in the children's learning process is designed in depth. The total of 18 subjects consisted of 15 trainers, 1 head of psychology laboratory, 1 head of the special education laboratory or Pendidikan Luar Bbias (PLB) laboratory, and 1 representative of SOIna Development and Sports section. Data collection was obtained through interviews of trainers related to the measurement of related laboratory and PLB related to instrument availability. The Data analysis was conducted qualitatively by collecting various of the data related to the measurement of friendship activity and adjective, then reducing it so that the conclusion about the result of the trainer's need related to the measurement instrument of friendship activity and an adjective to the child's mental retardation in unified sports. The result of the interview shows that the measurement of friendship and activity of the trainer through observation without a valid and reliable instrument. On the other hand, the trainer realizes the importance of an instrument in measurement. The result of confirmation to Head of the Laboratory of Psychology, Head of Laboratory of Psychology, Head of Laboratory of Psychology, Head of Laboratory of Psychology, Head of Laboratory of Psychology. Based on these results it can be the instrument of friendship activity and adjective in the child intellectual disability in unified sports.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• friendship activity,intellectual disability,unified sports

Kaynakça

1. Benson J, Clark F (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,36(12), 789-800.
2. Colton D, Covert RW (2007).Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. John Wiley & Sons.
3. Firdaos R (2017). Development Method of Student Spiritual Intelligence Instrument. Edukasia: Journal of Islamic Education Research,11(2), 377-398.
4. Jailani MS (2013). Qualitative Research Variety (Ethnography, Phenomenology, Grounded Theory, and Case Studies).EDU_BIO Journal of Biology Education,4.
5. Kauffman JM, Hallahan DP (2011). An Introduction: into Exceptional Learners Special Educational. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Kaplan RM, Saccuzo DP (2013). Psychological Testing Principle, Applications, and Issues. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd. Kidd SA (2002). The role of qualitative research in psychological journals.Psychological Methods,7(1), 126-138.
7. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research.American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy,65(23), 2276-2284.
8. Kothari CR (2004). Research Methodology, New Delhi: New Age International Publisher.

9. Krahn GL, Hohn MF, Kime C (1995). Incorporating qualitative approaches into clinical child psychology research. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 204- 213.
10. Matondang Z (2009). Validity and reliability of a research instrument. Journal of Tabularasa,6(1), 87-97.
11. Martin JJ, Smith K (2002). Friendship quality in youth disability sport: Perceptions of a best friend. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19 (4), 472-482.
12. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. New Delhi: Sage Publication.
13. Nalbant S, Aktop A, Özer D, Hutzler Y (2011). Validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the Friendship Activity Scale. European Journal of Special Needs Education,26(4), 523-530.
14. Ozer D, Baran F, Aktop A, Nalbant S, Ağlamış E, Hutzler Y (2012). Effects of a Special Olympics Unified Sports soccer program on psycho-social attributes of youth with and without intellectual disability. Research in developmental disabilities,33, 229-239.
15. Rector A (2013). Special Olympics Unified Sports: A student's guide. Ed. 2. Arizona USA: Special Olympics. Siperstein GN (1980). Adjective Checklist (ACL) and Friendship Activity Scale (FAS): Instruments for measuring children's attitudes. The University of Massachusetts. Center for Social Development and Education, Boston.
16. Siperstein GN, Hardman ML, Wappett MT, Clary L (2001). National evaluation of the Special Olympics unified sports program. The University of Massachusetts Boston and the University of Utah.
17. Snyder SL, Mitchell DT (2006).Cultural locations of disability. University of Chicago Press.
18. Sullivan E, Glidden LM (2014). Changing attitudes toward disabilities through unified sports.Intellectual and developmental disabilities,52(5), 367-378.
19. Sugiyono (2013). Quantitative Research Methods Qualitative And R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
20. Townsend M, Hassall J (2007). Mainstream students' attitudes to possible inclusion in unified sports with students who have an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,20(3), 265-273.
21. Valkova H (1998). The development of indices of motor competence and social behavior of participants and non-participants in the Special Olympics movement. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Gymnica,28, 53-59.
22. Weiss MR, Smith AL (2002). Friendship quality in youth sport: Relationship to age, gender, and motivation variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,24, 420-437.