Hypothesis 5 stated that the judgme

Hypothesis 5 stated that the judgments reflected only one dimension, inter- preted as level of adjustment. PCA with varimax rotation on the eight variables resulted in a two-factor solution for the judges. The results seemed to differenti- ate between two factors: (a) cognitive development and (b) socioemotional adap- tation. Therefore, we rejected Hypothesis 5.
According to Hypothesis 6, first graders should have scored lower on the eight variables than did third graders, and students in regular education classes should have scored higher than did students in special education classes (see Table 4). With the exception of emotional development and impulsiveness, the differences in the variables between the two age groups, as well as between the regular and special education school groups, were significant at the p < .05 level, and in the predicted direction. So, we accepted Hypothesis 6.
Correlations of the judgments by the judges and teachers (see the first exploratory question) indicated agreement (Funder, 2001). In this study, we con- sidered the teachers’ judgments to be the criterion for the estimations by the judges. The correlations of cognitive, social, and emotional development scores by judges and teachers were significant (p < .05; N = 115) but modest (rs = .35, .23, and .29, respectively). The estimation of drawing skill by judges and teach- ers correlated significantly (r = .59, p < .05; N = 115) but moderately.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Hipotesis 5 menyatakan bahwa penilaian tersebut hanya satu dimensi, ditafsirkan sebagai tingkat penyesuaian. PCA dengan rotasi pada delapan variabel menghasilkan solusi dua-faktor untuk hakim. Hasil tampaknya diferensiasi makan antara dua faktor: (a) perkembangan kognitif, dan (b) sosioemosional tasi adaptif. Oleh karena itu, kami menolak Hipotesis 5.
Menurut Hipotesis 6, siswa kelas pertama harus mencetak gol lebih rendah dari delapan variabel daripada kelas ketiga, dan siswa dalam kelas pendidikan reguler harus mencetak gol lebih tinggi daripada siswa di kelas pendidikan khusus (lihat Tabel 4). Dengan pengecualian perkembangan emosional dan impulsif, perbedaan dalam variabel antara dua kelompok usia, serta antara kelompok-kelompok sekolah pendidikan reguler dan khusus, yang signifikan pada p <.05 tingkat, dan dalam arah yang diprediksi. Jadi, kami menerima Hipotesis 6.
Korelasi dari penilaian oleh juri dan guru (lihat pertanyaan eksplorasi pertama) menunjukkan kesepakatan (Penyandang Dana, 2001). Dalam studi ini, kami con- sidered penilaian guru menjadi kriteria untuk estimasi oleh hakim. Korelasi skor perkembangan kognitif, sosial, dan emosional oleh hakim dan guru yang signifikan (p <.05; N = 115) tetapi sederhana (rs = .35, .23, .29 dan, masing-masing). Estimasi menggambar keterampilan oleh hakim dan guru berkorelasi signifikan (r = 0,59, p <.05; N = 115) tapi cukup.