BAB VII KESIMPULAN DAN SARAN
B. Saran
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dan pembahasan serta kesimpulan dapat disarankan hal-hal berikut ini:
1. Bagi institusi pendidikan, agar mampu membuat suatu kurikulum dalam tahap akademik yang berorientasi terhadap kolaborasi maupun IPE dalam menunjang mutu pendidikan tahap akademik dalam professional kesehatan dengan landasan bahwa persepsi sudah baik dari mahasiswa FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
84
2. Bagi program studi ilmu keperawatan FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta agar menciptakan suatu pembelajaran atau kegiatan guna meningkatkan kepercayaan diri terhadap profesi mereka sendiri.
3. Bagi mahasiswa, meningkatkan lagi pengetahuan dan kesadaran terhadap IPE dengan sering belajar bersama mahasiswa profesi lain dan meningkatkan interaksi dengan mahasiswa profesi lain.
4. Bagi peneliti selanjtunya, diharapkan dapat menggali lebih dalam mengenai faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi persepsi mahasiswa FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta terhadap IPE serta meneliti kesiapan terhadap IPE, serta mencari hubungan persepsi dan kesiapan terhadap IPE pada mahasiswa.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
A’la, M.Z. (2010). Gambaran Persepsi dan Kesiapan Mahasiswa Tahap
Akademik terhadap Interprofessional Education di Fakultas Kedokteran UGM. Skripsi Program Studi Ilmu Keperawatan Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Gadjah Mada.
American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP). (2009). Interprofessional education: principel and application, a framework for clinical pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy, 29 (3): 145-164.
Anderson, E., Manek, N., & Davidson, A. (2006). Evaluation of model for maximizing interprofessional education in an acute hospital. Journal of Interprofessional Care; 20(2): 182-194.
Ateah, C. A., et. al. 2011. Nurse Education Today. Diakses dari http://www.elsevier.com/nedt pada tanggal 29 Juni 2014
Azwar, S. (2005). Pengkuran Skala Psikologis. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Barr, H. (1998). Competent to collaborate: Towards a competency-based model for interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care 12: 181- 187.
Barr, H., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., Hammick, M., & Freeth, D. (2005). Effective interprofessional education: Argument, assumption and evidence. 1st ed. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.
Basuki, Endang. 2008. Komunikasi antar Petugas Kesehatan. Departemen Ilmu Kedokteran Komunitas, Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta. indonesia.digitaljournals.org
Burns, N & Grove, S, K. (2005). The Practice Of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique, and utilization. Missouri: Elsevier Saunders.
Cameron, A. et. al.. 2009. Interprofessional Education Supplementan Interprofessional Education Session for First-YearHealth Science student. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73 (4) Article 62
Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. 2009. What is Collaborative Practice.
Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE). (2002). Interprofessional education: A definition. London: CAIPE
College of Nurses of Ontario. Interprofessional Collaboration among Health
Coster, S., 2008. Interprofessional Attitudes Amongst Undergraduate Student In
The health Professions: A Longitudinal Questionnaire Survey.
International Journal of Nursing Studies[serial online] [cited 2009 may 14] : 45 (2008); 1667-1681.
Fauziah, F.A. (2010). Analisis gambaran persepsi dan kesiapan mahasiswa profesi FK UGM terhadap interprofessional education di tatanan pendidikan klinik. Skripsi Program Studi Ilmu Keperawatan Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Forte, A. & Fowler, P. (2009). Participation in interprofessional education : An evaluation of student and staff experiences. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(1): 58-66.
Freeth. D. Hammick, M., Reeves, S., Koppel, I. & Barr, H. (2005). Effective Interprofessional Education: Development, Delivery and Evaluation. 1st ed. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.
Galle, J. & Lorelei L.. (2010). A medical student’s prespective of praticipation in
an interprofessional education placement: An autoethnography. Journal of Interprofessional Care November 24 (6): 722-733.
Gaudet J, Wolfson L Shekter, Seaberg R, Stulla D, Cohoon C, Kapelus G, Goldman J, et. al. 2007. Implementing and evaluating interprofessional education for health sciences students: Early experiences from a Canadian College. Journal of interprofessional care [cites 2009 may 15]. Available from: http://informahealthcare .com
Gilbert, J.H.V. (2005). Interprofessional education for collaborative, Patient- Centered Practice. Nursing Leadership volume 18 number 2.
Glen, S., Revees, S. 2003. Developing Interprofessional education inthe preregistration curricula: mission impossible?. Nurse Education in
Practic, 4:45-52. Diakses dari
http://www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/nepr
Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care Suplement 1: 188-196.
Hawk, C., Buckwalter, K., Byrd, L., Cigelman, S., Dofman, L., Ferguson, K.,
(2002). Health professions students’ perceptions of interprofessional
relationships. Academic Medicine, 77(04): 354-357.
Hidayat, A. Aziz Alimul Hidayat. (2008). Metode Penelitian Keperawatan dan
Teknik Analisis Data. Jakarta: Salemba Medika
HPEQ-Project. (2011). Mahasiswa kesehatan harus tahu!: Berpartisipasi dan berkolaborasi dalam sistem pendidikan tinggi ilmu kesehatan. Jakarta: Dikti-Kemendikbud.
HPEQ-Project. (2012). Apa kata mahasiswa?: Hasil kajian partisipasi & kolaborasi mahasiswa kesehatan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Dikti- Kemendikbud.
http://hukum.kompasiana.com/2009/06/03/kronologi-kasusprita-mulyasari-13940.html diakses pada jam 22.30 tgl 25/04/2014 ditulis oleh Iskandar dzulkarnaen
http://kamusbahasaindonesia.org diakses pada jam 10.28 tgl 30/04/2014
http://republika.co.id/berita/nasional/jawatimur/13/06/20/mooyc0-kain-kassa-tertinggal-pascaoperasi-keluarga-akan-gugat-rsud-soetomo. Diakses pada jam 9.36 tgl 29/04/2014
http://tempo.co/read/news/2013/03/25/058469172/Sampai-Akhir-2012-Terjadi-182-Kasus-Malpraktek diakses pada jam 9.17 tgl 29/04/2014
Illingworth, Paul & Sonya Chelvanayagam. (2007). Benefits of Interprofessional Education in Health care. Journal of Nursing. Vol 16, No 2.
Jelley, W., Cragg, B., Hirsh, M., Barnes, P. (2006) Interprofessional Rural Clinical Education.University of Ottawa & St. Paul’s University
Keith, K.M. & Askin, D. F. (2008). Effective collaboration: The key to better healthcare. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership (CJNL), 21 (2): 51- 61.
Ker, J. Mole, l. Bradley, P. (2003). Early Introduction to Interprofessional Learning: A Simulated Ward Environment. Medical Education, 37:248-255.
Lee, R. (2009). Interprofessional education: Principles and application. Pharmacotherapy, 29 (3): 145e-164e.
Lindeke, L. L., & Sieckert, A. M. (2005). Nurse-physician workplace collaboration. Journal of Issues in Nursing.
Luecht, R.M., Madsen, M.K., Taugher, M.P., & Petterson, B.J. (1990). Assessing Professional Perceptions: Design and Validation of an Interdisciplinary Education Perceptions Scale. Journal of Allied health, Spring, 181-191. MacDonals, M. B., bally, J. M. S. 2010. Nurse Education In Practice,10:
238-242. Diakses dari http://www.elsevier.com/nepr
McCroskey, J. And P.J. Robertson (1999). Challenges and Benefits of Interprofessional Education: Evaluation of the Inter-Professional Initiative at the University of Souther California. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26: 69-87
McFadyen, A.K., Maclaren, W.M., & Webster, V.S. 2007. The Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS): An Alternative remodeled sub-scale structure and its reliability.
Morison, S. et. al..2003. Developing Pre-Qualification Interprofessional Education For Nursing and Medical Student: Sampling Student Attitude
To Guide Development. Nursing Education in Practice, 4: 20-29. Diakses
dari http://www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/nepr pada tanggal 20 Juni 2014.
Noor, Murni .(2013). Survei 7 tahun, 772 malpraktek medis. Di unduh di www.sroto.beritagar.com/p/survei-7-tahun-772-malpraktek-medis-9683 pada tanggal 13 Desember 2013
Notoatmodjo, Soekidjo. 2005. Metodologi Penelitian Kesehatan. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Nursalam. (2008). Konsep dan penerapan metodologi penelitian ilmu keperawatan: Pedoman skripsi, thesis, dan instrumen penelitian keperawatan. Jakarta: Salemba
Nursalam. (2009). Konsep dan Penerapan Metodologi Penelitian Ilmu
Keperawatan. Jakarta: Salemba Medika
O’Daniel, M., Rosenstein, A.H. 2007. Patient-Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurse.
Polit, Denise F. (1996) Data Analysis & Statistics For Nursing Research. New York.
Riduwan. (2007). Metode dan Teknik Menyusun Tesis. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Royal College of Nursing. (2006). The impact and effectiveness of interprofessional education in primary care : An RCN literature review. London: RCN.
Saryono. (2008). Metodologi penelitian kesehatan. Yogyakarta: Mitra Cendekia Press. (2011). Metodologi penelitian kesehatan. Kampus Unsoed: UPT Percetakan dan Penerbitan.
Sedyowinarso, M., Fauziah, F. A., Aryakhiyati, N., Julica, M. P., Sulistyowati, E., Masriati, F. N., Olam, S. J., Dini, C., Afifah, M., Meisudi, R., Piscesa, S. (2011). Persepsi dan kesiapan mahasiswa dan dosen profesi kesehatan terhadap model pembelajaran pendidikan interprofesi. Proyek HPEQ- Dikti.
Siregar, Syofian. 2013. Statistika parametrik untuk penelitian kuantitatif dengan
Sukardi, Elias. dkk. 2007. Modul Komunikasi Pasien-Dokter: Suatu Pendekatan Holistik. Penerbit Buku kedokteran EGC. Jakarta.
Suter, E. et. al..2009. Role Understanding and Effective Communication As Core Competencies For Collaborative Practice.Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23 (1): 41-51
Teresa Broers, MSc, et al.What’s in a Word? Understanding Interprofessional Collaboration from the Students’ Perspective.Vol.1.1.November 2009. hal.17
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. 2011. Perceptions of Interprofessional Teamwork: Interprofessional Teamwork Perception Scale and Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale. Texas Tech University.
The Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. 2010 . A National
Interprofessional Competency Framework. .Canada
The Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. (2008). Interprofessional
Education & Core Competencies. Diakses
http:www.cihc.ca/files/publications/CIHC_IPE-LitReview_May07.pdf pada 13 Desember 2013
The University of Queensland. (2005), Handbook of University Policies and
Procedures. 3.40.5 Placement Courses. Diakses dari
http://www.uq.edu.au/hupp/?page=25120&pid=25075 pada tanggal 14 Desember 2013
Thistlethwaite, J. & Monica M., (2010). Learning outcomes for interprofessional education (IPE): Literature review and synthesis. Journal of Interprofessional Care, September 2010, 24(5): 503-513.
Thoha, M. (2004). Perilaku Organisasi, Konsep Dasar dan Aplikasinya. Jakarta: CV Rajawali
Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. 2010. Panduan Akademik UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta: Program Strata tahun 2010-2011. Williams, et. al.. 2009. Can Interprofessional Education DVD Simulations
Provide and Alternative Method for Clinical Placements in Nursing. Nurse Education Today, 1-5.
Wolfson, L. S. (2007). Interprofessional Education: A College Perspective. Healthcare Quarterly, 10(4), 8-9
Wood, G. LoBiondo, Judith Haber. (2006). Nursing Research: Method and Critical Appraisal. Mosby Elsevier - Medical
World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education & collaborative practice. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Zhang, C., Thompson, S., Miller, C. 2010. A review of Simulation-Based Interprofessional Education. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10: le-10e.
IZIN PENGGUNAAN KUESIONER
Revised Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) (McFadyen et al 2007)
Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement by drawing a circle around the number of the response that best expresses your feeling.
Strongly Agree Agree Some-what Agree Some-what Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1. Individuals in my profession are well-trained 6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Individuals in my profession are able to work closely with individuals in other professions
6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Individuals in my profession are very positive about their goals and objectives
6 5 4 3 2 1
4. Individuals in my profession need to cooperate with other professions
6 5 4 3 2 1
5. Individuals in my profession are very positive about their contributions and accomplishments
6 5 4 3 2 1
6. Individuals in my profession must depend upon the work of people in other professions
6 5 4 3 2 1
7. Individuals in my profession trust each other's professional judgment
6 5 4 3 2 1
8. Individuals in my profession are extremely competent
6 5 4 3 2 1
9. Individuals in my profession are willing to share
information and resources with other professionals 6 5 4 3 2 1
10. Individuals in my profession have good relations with people in other professions
6 5 4 3 2 1
11. Individuals in my profession think highly of other related professions
6 5 4 3 2 1
12. Individuals in my profession work well with each other 6 5 4 3 2 1
The new sub-structure thus had the following three sub-scales: Competency and Autonomy [Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8] Perceived Need for Co-operation [Items 4 and 6]
Perception of Actual Co-operation [Items 2, 9, 10, 11, 12] With max/min scores of 30/5; 12/2 and 30/5 respectively
Original Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) (Luecht et al 1990)
Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement by drawing a circle around the number of the response that best expresses your feeling.
Strongly Agree Agree Some-what Agree Some-what Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1. Individuals in my profession are well-trained 6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Individuals in my profession are able to work closely
with individuals in other professions 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Individuals in my profession demonstrate a great deal
of autonomy 6 5 4 3 2 1
4. Individuals in other professions respect the work done
by my profession 6 5 4 3 2 1
5. Individuals in my profession are very positive about
their goals and objectives 6 5 4 3 2 1
6. Individuals in my profession need to cooperate with
other professions 6 5 4 3 2 1
7. Individuals in my profession are very positive about
their contributions and accomplishments 6 5 4 3 2 1
8. Individuals in my profession must depend upon the
work of people in other professions 6 5 4 3 2 1
9. Individuals in other professions think highly of my
profession 6 5 4 3 2 1
10. Individuals in my profession trust each other's
professional judgment 6 5 4 3 2 1
11. Individuals in my profession have a higher status
than individuals in other professions 6 5 4 3 2 1
12. Individuals in my profession make every effort to understand the capabilities and contributions of other professions
6 5 4 3 2 1
13. Individuals in my profession are extremely competent 6 5 4 3 2 1
14. Individuals in my profession are willing to share
information and resources with other professionals 6 5 4 3 2 1
15. Individuals in my profession have good relations
with people in other professions 6 5 4 3 2 1
16. Individuals in my profession think highly of other
related professions 6 5 4 3 2 1
17. Individuals in my profession work well with each other 6 5 4 3 2 1
18. Individuals in other professions often seek the advice of people in my profession
6 5 4 3 2 1
I have left the original item numbers on this version but obviously you can change to read 1- 12 for use as in above version.
The new sub-structure thus had the following four sub-scales: Competency and Autonomy [Items 1, 5, 7, 10, 13] Perceived Need for Co-operation [Items 6 and 8]
Perception of Actual Co-operation [Items 2, 14, 15, 16, 17] With max/min scores of 30/5; 12/2 and 30/5 respectively
PERMOHONAN KESEDIAAN MENJADI RESPONDEN
Kepada
Yth. Saudara Responden
Mahasiswa Fakultas Kedokteran dan Ilmu Kesehatan FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
Berkaitan dengan penelitian yang akan saya lakukan, saya mohon bantuan dan kesedian waktu untuk mengisi daftar pernyataan berikut ini dengan sejujur-jujurnya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui persepsi mahasiswa FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta terhadap interprofessional education. Partisipasi Saudara akan sangat berarti terhadap penelitian saya dan berguna bagi pengembangan pembelajaran. Semua pernyataan yang Saudara jawab dan identitas Saudara, saya jamin kerahasiaannya dan akan menjadi data penelitian. Atas partisipasinya saya ucapkan terima kasih.
Hormat saya,
Peneliti Lampiran 5
LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN MENJADI RESPONDEN
Saya yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:
Inisial : Program Studi : Tahun angkatan : NIM : Umur : Jenis kelamin : L/P No. HP :
Pendidikan Akhir : SMA/SMK/MA/Pesantren
Dengan ini menyatakan bersedia menjadi responden penelitian yang dilakukan oleh:
Nama : Devica Kesuma
Program Studi : Ilmu Keperawatan 2010, FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
NIM : 1110104000016
Judul penelitian : Persepsi Mahasiswa FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta terhadap Interprofessional Education
Saya akan memberikan jawaban sesuai dengan keyakinan saya untuk membantu penelitian ini. Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat secara sukarela dan tanpa unsur paksaan dari siapapun.
Ciputat, ...
(...)
KUESIONER PERSEPSI MAHASISWA FKIK UIN SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA TERHADAP INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
Petunjuk pengisian
1. Responden adalah Mahasiswa FKIK UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, terdiri dari empat program studi:
Program Studi Kesehatan Masyarakat Program Studi Farmasi
Program Studi Pendidikan Dokter Program Studi Ilmu Keperawatan 2. Istilah lain
Profesi saya = Program studi saya
Profesi lain = Program studi selain program studi saya
*Contoh program studi saya adalah kesehatan masyarakat, maka profesi lain adalah Farmasi, Kedokteran, dan Ilmu Keperawatan
3. Berilah tanda (V) untuk jawaban Saudara. Keterangan :
SS: Sangat Setuju S: Setuju
AS: Agak Setuju
ATS: Agak Tidak Setuju TS: Tidak Setuju
STS: Sangat Tidak Setuju
No Pertanyaan SS S AS ATS TS STS
1 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya sangat terlatih 2 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya dapat bekerja
dengan baik bersama orang lain dengan profesi yang berbeda
3 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya memiliki pandangan sangat optimis akan tujuan-tujuan yang ingin dicapai
4 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya perlu untuk bekerjasama dengan profesi lain
5 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya memiliki pandangan yang sangat positif akan kontribusi dan pencapaian yang mereka lakukan
6 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya bergantung pada pekerjaan orang-orang di profesi lain
No Pertanyaan SS S AS ATS TS STS
7 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya saling mempercayai penilaian professional yang dibuat orang lain
8 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya sangatlah kompeten
9 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya bersedia berbagi informasi dan sumber daya dengan orang-orang professional lainnya
10 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya memiliki hubungan baik dengan orang dari profesi lain 11 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya menghargai
orang-orang lain yang bekerja dalam profesi yang berkaitan
12 Orang-orang di dalam profesi saya bekerja sama dengan orang lain dengan baik.
13 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya akan saling membantu pekerjaan profesi lain
14 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya dapat menunjukkan outonomi dengan baik
15 Orang-orang dari profesi lain menghargai hasil kinerja dari profesi saya
16 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya menganggap tinggi terhadap profesi lain
17 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya percaya satu sama lain dalam penilaian profesionalisme 18 Orang-orang dalam profesi saya berusaha
untuk memahami kemampuan dan kontribusi dari profesi lain
19 Orang-orang dalam profesi lain sering menerima saran dari individu profesi saya
Faktor Analisis Uji Validitas 13 item (n=30) KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,606
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 126,943 df 78 Sig. ,000 Pattern Matrixa Component 1 2 3
profesi saya akan saling membantu pekerjaan profesi lain ,827 -,451 -,132
profesi saya menghargai orang-orang lain yang bekerja
dalam profesi yang berkaitan ,742 -,109 ,107
profesi saya dapat bekerja dengan baik bersama orang lain
dengan profesi yang berbeda ,634 ,113 -,245
profesi saya bekerja sama dengan orang lain dengan baik. ,610 ,237 -,051
profesi saya memiliki hubungan baik dengan orang dari
profesi lain ,609 ,245 ,098
profesi saya sangat terlatih -,228 ,964 -,175
profesi saya sangatlah kompeten ,142 ,793 -,033
profesi saya bersedia berbagi informasi dan sumber daya
dengan orang-orang professional lainnya ,124 ,431 ,384
profesi saya saling mempercayai penilaian professional
yang dibuat orang lain -,144 ,183 ,773
profesi saya bergantung pada pekerjaan orang-orang di
profesi lain -,146 -,353 ,770
profesi saya perlu untuk bekerjasama dengan profesi lain -,071 -,243 ,600
profesi saya memiliki pandangan yang sangat positif akan
kontribusi dan pencapaian yang mereka lakukan ,347 ,128 ,541
profesi saya memiliki pandangan sangat optimis akan
tujuan-tujuan yang ingin dicapai ,103 ,170 ,460
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Reliabilitas Faktor-1 5 item dari 13 item (n=30) Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 30 100,0
Excludeda 0 ,0
Total 30 100,0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=P13 P11 P2 P12 P10 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliabilitas Faktor-2 3 item dari 13 item (n=30)
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=P1 P8 P9
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Reliabilitas Faktor-3 5 item dari 13 item (n=30)
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=P7 P6 P4 P3 P5 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,720 5 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,704 3 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,636 5
Faktor Analisis 19 item (n=143) KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,854
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 798,553 df 171 Sig. ,000 Pattern Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 5 P10 ,832 ,215 -,109 -,188 -,116 P11 ,817 -,055 -,022 ,138 -,054 P12 ,705 ,015 ,201 ,054 ,002 P9 ,652 -,105 ,284 -,056 -,040 P14 ,449 ,139 ,058 ,162 ,161 P13 ,393 ,143 ,355 ,054 -,129 P19 ,006 ,838 -,105 ,059 ,025 P15 ,288 ,712 -,059 -,098 -,101 P16 -,024 ,524 ,072 ,289 ,017 P2 ,082 -,276 ,661 -,082 ,287 P17 ,070 ,014 ,583 ,135 ,156 P7 -,087 ,382 ,536 -,090 ,085 P18 ,060 ,026 ,532 ,323 -,139 P6 -,328 ,394 ,100 ,695 ,002 P4 ,108 -,204 ,214 ,585 -,364 P5 ,126 ,024 ,043 ,542 ,217 P3 ,409 -,062 -,329 ,534 ,275 P1 -,176 -,084 ,130 ,072 ,897 P8 ,180 ,161 ,264 -,144 ,566
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.
Reliabilitas 19 item pernyataan (n=143) Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 143 100,0
Excludeda 0 ,0
Total 143 100,0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,845 19 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted P1 90,25 55,246 ,234 ,845 P2 90,24 53,904 ,349 ,841 P3 90,20 52,652 ,427 ,838 P4 89,69 55,175 ,295 ,843 P5 90,16 52,530 ,485 ,836 P6 91,20 48,187 ,404 ,846 P7 90,50 52,548 ,415 ,838 P8 90,23 52,489 ,456 ,837 P9 90,07 52,164 ,506 ,835 P10 90,29 52,096 ,460 ,836 P11 90,19 51,478 ,572 ,832 P12 90,31 50,978 ,656 ,829 P13 90,17 52,188 ,529 ,834 P14 90,45 51,193 ,547 ,833 P15 90,78 50,654 ,419 ,839 P16 91,00 48,901 ,453 ,839 P17 90,26 52,658 ,518 ,835 P18 90,20 53,684 ,497 ,837 P19 90,73 51,323 ,387 ,841
Reliabilitas 18 item pernyataan (n=143) Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 143 100,0
Excludeda 0 ,0
Total 143 100,0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,845 18 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted P2 85,11 51,790 ,334 ,842 P3 85,06 50,538 ,415 ,839 P4 84,55 52,812 ,308 ,843 P5 85,03 50,379 ,478 ,836 P6 86,06 46,045 ,404 ,847 P7 85,36 50,346 ,413 ,839 P8 85,10 50,483 ,433 ,838 P9 84,94 49,933 ,509 ,835 P10 85,16 49,812 ,468 ,836 P11 85,06 49,222 ,578 ,832 P12 85,18 48,770 ,659 ,829 P13 85,04 49,871 ,541 ,834 P14 85,31 49,034 ,544 ,833 P15 85,64 48,330 ,429 ,839 P16 85,87 46,778 ,451 ,839 P17 85,13 50,477 ,514 ,835 P18 85,07 51,389 ,505 ,837 P19 85,60 49,086 ,390 ,841
Faktor Analisis 18 item (n=143) KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,866
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 748,297 df 153 Sig. ,000 Pattern Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 P10 ,811 -,140 ,220 -,174 P11 ,810 -,017 -,053 ,145 P12 ,671 ,214 ,010 ,074 P9 ,594 ,277 -,122 -,002 P3 ,546 -,251 -,004 ,436 P14 ,450 ,163 ,146 ,106 P2 ,038 ,724 -,285 -,028 P17 -,006 ,677 -,013 ,138 P7 -,178 ,592 ,356 -,093 P8 ,191 ,505 ,183 -,237 P18 -,026 ,496 -,012 ,370 P13 ,289 ,379 ,102 ,076 P19 ,011 -,068 ,854 -,041 P15 ,251 -,053 ,710 -,150 P16 ,026 -,006 ,557 ,258 P4 ,118 -,025 -,207 ,689 P6 -,248 ,003 ,430 ,653 P5 ,187 ,124 ,049 ,468
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Reliabilitas Faktor-1, 6 item dari 18 item (n=143) Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 143 100,0
Excludeda 0 ,0
Total 143 100,0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=P11 P12 P10 P9 P14 P3 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliabilitas Faktor-2, 6 item dari 18 item (n=143)
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=P2 P17 P7 P8 P18 P13 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliabilitas Faktor-3, 3 item dari 18 item (n=143)
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=P19 P15 P16 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliabilitas Faktor-4, 3 item dari 18 item (n=143)
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=P4 P5 P6
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,817 6 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,695 6 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,624 3 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,412 3
Hasil Olahan SPSS Univariat Statistics Program_Studi N Valid 143 Missing 0 Program_Studi
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Kesehatan Masyarakat 37 25,9 25,9 25,9 Farmasi 37 25,9 25,9 51,7 Pendidikan Dokter 34 23,8 23,8 75,5 Ilmu Keperawatan 35 24,5 24,5 100,0 Total 143 100,0 100,0 Statistics Tahun_Angkatan N Valid 143 Missing 0 Tahun_Angkatan
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2013 39 27,3 27,3 27,3 2012 34 23,8 23,8 51,0 2011 38 26,6 26,6 77,6 2010 32 22,4 22,4 100,0 Total 143 100,0 100,0 Statistics Tahun_Angkatan N Valid 143 Missing 0
Jenis_Kelamin
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Laki-laki 49 34,3 34,3 34,3 Perempuan 94 65,7 65,7 100,0 Total 143 100,0 100,0 Statistics Pendidikan_Akhir N Valid 143 Missing 0 Pendidikan_Akhir
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid SMA 93 65,0 65,0 65,0 SMK 2 1,4 1,4 66,4 MA 25 17,5 17,5 83,9 Pesantren 23 16,1 16,1 100,0 Total 143 100,0 100,0
Descriptive Statistics Umur
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Umur 143 15 23 19,76 1,337
Valid N (listwise) 143
P1
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Agak Tidak Setuju 1 ,7 ,7 ,7
Agak Setuju 12 8,4 8,4 9,1
Setuju 97 67,8 67,8 76,9
Sangat Setuju 33 23,1 23,1 100,0
Hasil Olahan SPSS Beda Mean Descriptives N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Min Max Lower Bound Upper Bound kom_1 Kesehatan Masyarakat 37 31,62 2,240 ,368 30,87 32,37 27 36 Farmasi 37 30,41 3,775 ,621 29,15 31,66 16 36 Pendidikan Dokter 34 30,82 3,224 ,553 29,70 31,95 21 36 Ilmu Keperawatan 35 30,31 2,676 ,452 29,39 31,23 25 36 Total 143 30,80 3,048 ,255 30,29 31,30 16 36 kom_2 Kesehatan Masyarakat 37 31,19 2,025 ,333 30,51 31,86 27 36 Farmasi 37 30,54 2,534 ,417 29,70 31,39 23 36 Pendidikan Dokter 34 30,91 2,723 ,467 29,96 31,86 22 36 Ilmu Keperawatan 35 30,14 2,353 ,398 29,33 30,95 25 36 Total 143 30,70 2,424 ,203 30,30 31,10 22 36 kom_3 Kesehatan Masyarakat 37 13,46 2,352 ,387 12,68 14,24 9 18 Farmasi 37 13,62 2,113 ,347 12,92 14,33 10 18 Pendidikan Dokter 34 14,94 1,890 ,324 14,28 15,60 11 18 Ilmu Keperawatan 35 12,60 2,511 ,424 11,74 13,46 6 15 Total 143 13,64 2,357 ,197 13,25 14,03 6 18 kom_4 Kesehatan Masyarakat 37 15,16 1,878 ,309 14,54 15,79 11 18 Farmasi 37 15,24 1,949 ,320 14,59 15,89 11 18 Pendidikan Dokter 34 15,32 1,934 ,332 14,65 16,00 10 18 Ilmu Keperawatan 35 14,71 1,637 ,277 14,15 15,28 12 18 Total 143 15,11 1,850 ,155 14,81 15,42 10 18
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
kom_1 Between Groups 39,013 3 13,004 1,412 ,242 Within Groups 1280,106 139 9,209 Total 1319,119 142 kom_2 Between Groups 22,184 3 7,395 1,266 ,289 Within Groups 811,886 139 5,841 Total 834,070 142 kom_3 Between Groups 96,637 3 32,212 6,469 ,000 Within Groups 692,174 139 4,980 Total 788,811 142 kom_4 Between Groups 7,788 3 2,596 ,754 ,522 Within Groups 478,422 139 3,442
