DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/empati.2027.55593

PENGEMBANGAN DAN UJI KELAYAKAN SELF-DIRECTED SEARCH INTEREST-30 (SDSI-30): INSTRUMEN PAIRED COMPARISON BERDASARKAN TEORI RIASEC HOLLAND DI LINGKUNGAN PEMERINTAH KOTA TANGERANG

1Badan Kepegawaian dan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Kota Tangerang, Indonesia

2Jl. KS Tubun 1, Pasar Baru, Karawaci, Kota Tangerang 15112, Indonesia

Received: 12 Feb 2026; Published: 27 Oct 2026.

Citation Format:
Abstract

The acceleration of assessment center data collection, including career interest data, in the civil servant setting is strengthening efforts for implementing merit systems. BKPSDM Kota Tangerang supports this effort by developing Self Directed Search Interest-30 (SDSI-30), an instrument to assess career interest which Kota Tangerang Government did not possess previously. The development of SDSI-30 based on RIASEC Holland Theory and to improve the relevance with civil servant job responsibilities. Items were presented as paired comparisons with forced choice format responses. SDSI-30 has undergone an expert judgement process, presented with a computerized assisted test, and gained data from 4749 participants. Data analysis used R Studio application based on Thurstone Comparative Judgement Case V to assess the validity and reliability of the instrument. The data analysis indicates that SDSI-30 can differentiate the RIASEC domain and shows latent orders within the continuum. The orders, correlations between domains, and configuration that concluded from empirical data, were different from circumplex Holland Theory. The differences  were products of culture, environment, and job factors. Omega reliability of each domain is low (0.42-0.67), which is the consequences of response format, ipsative characteristic, and the referenced theory to facilitate various job functions. SDSI-30 is valid and appropriate to explore career interest profile within individuals, but can not be used to compare absolute score.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext View|Download |  common.other
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (747KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (222KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (512KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (85KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (133KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (96KB)    Indexing metadata
 common.other
Untitled
Subject
Type Other
  Download (25KB)    Indexing metadata
 Data Analysis
Instruksi aplikasi R Studio dan hasil analisis
Subject Applied Psychology
Type Data Analysis
  Download (804KB)    Indexing metadata
Email colleagues
Keywords: Applied Psychology

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : ID
  1. Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three Coefficients For Analysing The Reliability and Validity of Ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1(45), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
  2. Ambiel, R. A. M., Hauck-Filho, N., Barros, L. O., Martins, G. H., Abrahams, L., & De Fruyt, F. D., (2018). 18REST: A Short RIASEC-Interest Measure for Large-Scale Educational and Vocational Assessment. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 31 (6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-018-0086
  3. Badan Kepegawaian Negara. (2025, November 14). Terapkan Instrumen Baru ProASN, BKN Petakan Kompetensi dan Potensi Pegawai Untuk Akselerasi Manajemen Talenta. https://www.bkn.go.id/terapkan-instrumen-baru-proasn-bkn-petakan-kompetensi-dan-potensi-pegawai-untuk-akselerasi-manajemen-talenta/
  4. Bagaskara, R. S., Nurochim, H. F. G.I., Susilowati, H. P. D., & Agustin, N. N. (2024). Exploring Vocational Interest Measurement Instruments inIndonesia: Insights from a Scoping Review. Jurnal Psikologi, 51(3), 272-296. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.101309
  5. Becker, G. (2003). A Brief Introduction to Unified Test Theory. Psychological Reports, 93, 3-16. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9047751_A_Brief_Introduction_to_Unified_Test_Theory
  6. Chothani, K. & Patel, B. (2025). From Personality to Performance: A Conceptual Study of RIASEC’s Role in Career and Work Pattern. Creative Space: International Journal, 8(1), 150-154. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397786122_From_Personality_to_Performance_A_Conceptual_Study_of_RIASEC's_Role_in_Career_and_Work_Patterns
  7. Darmawan, E., Yusuf, F., Suseno, E., Budianto, H., & Maesyaroh, S. (2021). Decision support system for the selection of exemplary teachers using profile matching method. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1933 012013, 1-5. https/doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1933/1/012013
  9. Divayana, D. G. H., Adiarta, A., & Sudhirta, I. G. 2019. The Content Validity of Digital Test Item for Evaluation Courses Based on Superitem-Wondershare Using Aiken’s Calculation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1417, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1417/1/012040
  10. Dozie, V. C., Peterson, G. W., & Reardon, R. C. (2020). Career Decision State and Assessment of RIASEC Interest Structure. The Career Development Quarterly., 68, 186-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12222
  11. Dueber, D. M., Love, A. M. A., Toland, M. D., & Turner, T. A. (2018). Comparison of Single-Response Format and Forced-Choice Format Instruments Using Thurstonian Item Response Theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 00 (0), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417752782
  12. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2013). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 1-14. htpps://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
  13. Hanna, A., & Rounds, J. (2020). How accurate are interest inventories? A quantitative review of career choice hit rates. Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 765–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000269
  14. He, J., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Fetvadjiev, V. H., de Carmen Dominguez Espinosa, A., Adams, B., AlonsoArbiol, I., Aydinli–Karakulak, A., Buzea, C., Dimitrova, R., Fortin, A., Hapunda, G., Ma, S., Sargautyte, R., Sim, S., Schachner, M. K., Suryani, A., Zeinoun, P., & Zhang, R. (2017). On enhancing the cross–cultural comparability of Likert–Scale personality and value measures: A comparison of common procedures. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 642-657. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2132
  15. Irfan, M. (2017). Operasionalisasi Talent Management Pegawai Negeri Sipil. Civil Apparatus Policy Brief, 9(1), 1-4. Retrieved from https://www.bkn.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/9-Policy-Brief-Juli-2017.pdf
  16. Lee, P., Lee, S., & Stark, S. 2018. Examining validity evidence for multidimensional forced choice measurement with different scoring approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 229-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.031
  17. Pratama, A. P., Ghazali, A., Putrantor, N. A. R., Iswari, K. R., Wisesa, S., & Ferbriansyah, H. (2015). Civil Servants’ Competence in Indonesia: Suggestions for Future Research in the Context of Business. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science 169 (2015), 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.322
  18. Pfeifer, J., de Winter, J., Dodou, D., & Eisme, Y. B. (2025). Forced-choice vs. Likert scales in stimulus evaluation: Assessing robustness to personality bias. Unpublished Manuscript, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Belanda
  19. Revelle, W. & Condon, D. M. (2019). Reliability from ⍺ to ⍵: A Tutorial. Unpublished Manuscript, National Science Foundation
  20. Thurstone, L.L. (1994). A Law of Comparative Judgement. Psychological Review, 101 (2), 266-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.266
  21. Tracey, T. J. & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Holland’s and Gati’s Vocational-Interest Models: A Structural Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (2), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.2.229
  23. Tracey, T. J. & Rounds, J. (1996). The Spherical Representation of Vocational Interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior 48, 3-41. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0002

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.