Content validity and exploratory factor analysis on 26 Content Validity and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on 26 Items of The Interreligious Harmony Scale

. A qualitative study in Waingapu revealed five factors that form interreligious harmony: belief in one ancestor, religious dogma, respect, perception of interreligious incidents, and internal attribution. This study aimed to test the content validity and EFA of 26 items compiled based on these five factors. Content validity was carried out by querying an assessment from 18 raters using the Aiken's V formula. Five hundred fourteen respondents fill out the scale of interreligious harmony. The data from 514 respondents were then processed with the JASP for Windows 10 program. All items obtained Aiken's V values >0.65. The Aiken's V value means that the items are valid in terms of their content. Overall MSA value was 0.610, and Bartlett's test p-value was <0.001. The EFA calculation result in seven items that were aggregated in two factors with a loading factor was >0.4. The EFA calculation shows that the seven items that constructed these two factors are valid for measuring the theoretical construct of Interreligious Harmony. The difference between theoretical factors and those formed after EFA is also discussed in this article as well.


INTRODUCTION
The third millennium is the century of cooperation (Toffler, 1980). Human beings switch from ways of competition and conflict towards ways of peace and harmony to survive (Ancok, 2005). Human harmony is interreligious harmony. Data in 2012 show that 83.7% of people on earth adhere to a particular religion (Hackett & Grim, 2012). In 2020, most of the people on earth remain religious, reaching approximately 76.58% (Obateru, 2020). Thus, if religious adherents live in harmony, the world will be at peace. Awareness of the importance of interreligious harmony is marked by the holding of an annual event called World Interfaith Harmony Week (WIHW) by the United Nations (UN) (United Nations, 2021). In addition, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) sponsors peace education in countries prone to interreligious conflict (Lauritzen, 2016).
Interreligious harmony is oftentimes used as a tool of state control over its people (Neo, 2019). Therefore, several countries create political policies to develop interreligious harmony. Some instances of countries that can manage interreligious harmony politically are Russia (Lisovskaya, 2016), Bosnia-Herzegovina (Lovrić, 2017), and Singapore (Tan, 2008). These three countries organize interreligious harmony in their countries through education politics. Russia applies state ideology as the basis for interreligious harmony. Meanwhile, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Singapore educate their people to have the values of tolerance and good citizenship. The world community also takes part in fostering interreligious harmony. Some cases of world communities that develop interreligious harmony are the people of India (Hossain, 2018), Kazakhstan (Shabdenova & Alimbekova, 2019), and Thailand (Li & Xu, 2021). Communities in those three countries foster interreligious harmony through common traditions and cultural contacts.
In Indonesia, social harmony exists in the state philosophy, namely Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Susilo, 2020). If translated, the meaning of Bhineka Tunggal Ika is Unity in Diversity. In the context of interreligious harmony, Bhineka Tunggal Ika implies every religious adherent in Indonesia must tolerate, respect, and cooperate (Anshory, 2008;Sila & Fakhruddin, 2020). Indonesian people have been in coexistence such as, the life of the Javanese, the largest tribe in Indonesia. Javanese people make harmony as a philosophy of life and the virtue of daily behavior. Javanese people believe that social life will be compatible if every human respects and restrains each other (Huda, 2017;Suseno, 1991). The International Freedom Report reports that Indonesia is a country that has laid the foundation for interreligious harmony in its country through the 1945 Constitution article 29 paragraph 2 (Ismail, 2014 Countries and the world community are trying to create interreligious harmony. However, these efforts have not been supported by sufficient scientific work. Researches on interreligious harmony are still very limited compared to studies on interreligious conflicts. Based on a search of Scopus indexed journals with TITLE-ABS-KEY ("religious harmony"), 104 articles were found. Meanwhile, when using TITLE-ABS-KEY ("religious conflict"), 1,086 articles were detected. Once TITLE-ABS-KEY was changed to "interreligious harmony" and "interreligious conflict," then comparing articles between the two is 20 versus 41 articles.
The contribution of psychological research in the scope of interreligious harmony remains microscopic. According to a search for Scopus indexed journals with TITLE-ABS-KEY ("religious harmony"), only two psychological articles discuss the interreligious harmony theme. While the social sciences contributed 73 articles, Arts and Humanities yielded 43 articles, and Business, Management, and Accounting obtained eight articles. Furthermore, suppose use TITLE-ABS-KEY ("interreligious harmony," psychology only contributed one article. Thus, scientific psychology articles that discuss the theme of interreligious harmony are based on the TITLE-ABS-KEY formula "religious harmony" and "interreligious harmony", which procured three articles. The three articles comprise: The client's perspectives on therapists who build a family and personal harmony (Yap- Tan & Foo, 2020), The relationship between parental religiosity and mental health of pre-adolescents in a community sample: TRAILS study (van der jagt-jelsma et al., 2011), and Respect, internal attribution, and CORFing as Muslims' cultural, psychological strategies in fostering interreligious harmony in Waingapu (Permadi et al., 2020). The difference between the three articles is in their social context. The social context of harmony in the first article (Yap- Tan & Foo, 2020) is intrapersonal. In the second article (van der jagt-jelsma et al., 2011), it is clear that the social context is interpersonal. Simultaneously, the third article (Permadi et al., 2020) (Hofstede et al., 2010). If an instrument is developed based on theories outside Indonesian culture, then the instrument cannot fully describe the behavior of Indonesians. This misguided phenomenon continues to occur in the psychology setting (Shweder, 1991). Second, the current trend of developing psychological theories and instruments is psychology adapted to respective place's cultural conditions (Lawson et al., 2017). Many countries have begun to develop instruments of interreligious harmony based on local culture. One example is the Religious Harmony Index in Malaysia (Abdullah et al., 2016). The religious harmony index refers to local qualitative aspects of Malaysia, which are then developed into a measuring tool. So far, the scale of interreligious harmony used as a reference in Indonesia does not come from empirical research and scope of psychology. For example, the book entitled Index Kerukunan Umat Beragama 2019 (Sila & Fakhruddin, 2020) was sponsored by the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs. In the book, three indicators of religious harmony are listed: Tolerance, Equality, and Cooperation. These indicators were developed based on the Joint Regulation of the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Minister of Home Affairs Number 9 of 2006. However, the formulation of the indicators for religious harmony is not departed from empirical psychological research but on experts' opinions in their books. An example of a book used as the main reference in the Index Kerukunan Umat Beragama 2019 is Agama dan Pembangunan di Indonesia (Ali, 1975). However, professor Mukti Ali is prominent as a scholar who bases his thoughts on Islamic theology Rahmatan lil 'Alamin (Rambe, 2020).
Another example is the index of interreligious harmony in South Konawe, which uses the theory of Walzer and Diana L. Eck (Saprillah, 2016). The aspects of the measuring instrument are social relations, religious relations, social values, social locus, and government support. These five aspects are not psychological and are not aspects derived from Indonesian culture. Walzer and Diana L. Eck are scientists whose background is non-psychological. Walzer is a political scientist (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2021), while Diana L. Eck is in religious studies (Kahn, 2011). The theories of these two figures also have nothing to do with the context of Indonesian society.
Therefore, we applied the empirical findings in the article Respect, internal attribution, and CORFing as Muslims' cultural, psychological strategies in fostering interreligious harmony in Waingapu (Permadi et al., 2020) to create a psychological scale construct of interreligious harmony. Five factors form interreligious harmony (Permadi et al., 2020): Belief in One Ancestor (BOA), Religious Dogma (RD), Respect (Re), Perception of Interreligious Incident (PII), and Internal Attribution (IA). These five attributes emerged from empirical data which were analyzed using qualitative methods. We want to investigate whether the items and constructs of these factors are valid or otherwise, using content validity and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) approaches.

METHOD Stage 1: Creating the Scale Items
We compiled the scale items based on five factors and indicators of interreligious harmony (Permadi et al., 2020), namely BOA, RD, Re, PII, and IA. There were 26 scale items formed based on the five factors of interreligious harmony.

Stage 2: Expert Judgment
This stage is the content validity stage. The content validity process is assessed by experts (raters), whether the statements of the scale items are appropriate (rational) with the factors or otherwise (Azwar, 2017). The raters assigned a value to each item in the range of 1 (very inappropriate) to 5 (very appropriate). We asked 18 raters to rate the 26 items on the interreligious harmony scale. The qualifications of the raters are as follows: nine raters have master's degrees in psychology, four are Ph.D. (Cand.) of Psychology, four are Doctor of Psychology, and one is Professor in psychology.
One way to calculate content validity is to use Aiken's V formula (Azwar, 2011). Aiken's V formula (Figure 1) facilitate the calculation of the content-validity coefficient based on the results of the item rating. The assessment context is the extent to which the item represents the construct being measured (Aiken, 1985).

Figure 1. Aiken's formula
Note. s = r -lo, lo = the lowest score of validity (eg 1), c = the highest validity rating score (e.g. 5), r = number given by rater, n= number of raters

Stage 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
EFA is one of the scale contract validity tests. EFA is used to see on how scale items can measure existing theoretical constructs (Norris & Lecavalier, 2010). The EFA validity test is used because the theoretical contract does not have a solid theoretical form (Finch & West, 1997). For example, the theoretical construct of interreligious harmony (Permadi et al., 2020) is not yet robust because it is generated from qualitative analysis solely. Therefore, there needs to be an EFA construct validity test to find if the scale items can measure the construct and see how the theoretical construct looks like concomitantly.
At this stage, the items will be collected according to the strength of their correlation. This set of strongly correlated items is called the factors that make up the construct of the measuring instrument (Norris & Lecavalier, 2010).
We took data from 514 subjects using the cluster-purposive sampling method in Waingapu and manually gave the scale to domiciled people with a Waingapu Identity Card (KTP). unfavorable items are in the order of 1-2-3-4-5. EFA analysis was carried out using JASP 0.13.1.0 software for windows. The standard loading factor used is 0.4. Thus, items with a minimum loading factor of 0.4 are eligible to be maintained (Stevens, 1999). If the overall MSA Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Barllett's test used is above 0.5 and p < 0.05, then the analysis can proceed to the EFA stage (Ghozali, 2009).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of calculating the validity of items using Aiken's V formula show that all items have a V value >0.65. If the value of V >0.65 and the number of raters yields 18 people, the item is declared valid (Aiken, 1985). Thus, all items on the Harmony among Religious People scale are valid in respect to a content validity approach. From the results of the KMO calculation, it was found that the overall MSA value was 0.610 (KMO >0.5), and the Bartlette test value was 0.001 (p <0.05). Therefore, the calculation proceeded to investigate the grouping of items that make up the theoretical factors. By using standard Eigenvalues 1, five factors represented variables. However, there were only two factors with Eigenvalues >1. Therefore, Factor 1 and Factor 2 could explain the variance of 29.3% and 21.3%. Thus, the ability of these two factors to explain the variance was 50.6%. Based on the loading factor, the items formed two groups (factors). The first factor consisted of 8, 9, 13, and 14. At the same time, the second factor comprised items numbers 3, 18, and 22. Thus, 19 items could not be maintained because of smaller loading factor, which was less than 0.4. Based on Table 6, the scale items can be grouped as presented on Table 7. The next EFA stage is to name the two factors in Table 3. The items grouped in Factor 1 are items 8,9,13,and 14. Items 8,9,and 13 were taken from the qualitative theoretical construct of the BOA while item 14 came from Re. The items grouped in Factor 2 were collectively derived from IA.
In the theoretical construct of interreligious harmony (Permadi et al., 2020), BOA is an aspect that affects Re and PII aspects. Religious groups in Waingapu have mutual respect because, from the beginning, they perceived other groups as descended from the common ancestor. The Waingapu see view the identity of their ancestors as a unifying identity. The closeness of interaction between individuals due to the perception of similarity in identity is known as social cohesion (Fonseca et al., 2019). Social cohesion was found in item 13. The identity of common ancestor becomes the highest identity and unites all religious groups.
Item 8 emphasizes the emotional domain that causes individuals to feel connected to those of different religions. For example, a sense of brotherhood is a positive affective tone that is a wellknown emotional cohesion phenomenon (Forsyth, 2012). On the contrary, item 9 implies the impression that the individual feels a negative affective tone so that he feels disturbed when he is around people of different religions.
In item 14, individual feels the need to repay others in order to maintain harmony between them. There are actions, in which individuals show their interactions with followers of other religions. The strength of this positive action-based interaction is referred to as task cohesion (Huang et al., 2019).
Item 3 has a negative direction due to a technical error in placing the favorable and unfavorable criteria. Item 3 should be unfavorable, but there was a technical error, so it is included in the favorable criteria. Item 3 joins the Internal Attribution group of items whose nuances refer to personal responsibility. The statements in item 3 do not refer to individual responsibility but groups that are not specified as ingroups or outgroups. Therefore, item 3 should be unfavorable.
Based on the above analysis, we determine that Factor 1 is named "cohesion." However, factor 2 is called "internal attribution" since all items come from the corresponding theoretical construct. The only theoretical construct aspects whose all items cannot measure the theoretical construct are RD and PII. All items in the RD and PII obtained a loading factor smaller than 0.4. RD religious values are what underlie the behavior of interreligious harmony in Waingapu. Research respondents conveyed these religious values from religious leaders (Permadi et al., 2020). Meanwhile, religious values, which verbatim are the arguments of the holy book, are not realized by ordinary people who are the subject of research. People do not understand the scriptures. They are only aware of their thoughts, feelings, and behavior. However, the behavior of the Waingapu people is following the postulates of the scriptures that support interreligious harmony. When the research subjects filled out the scale of interreligious harmony, they did not perceive religious propositions as a factor influencing their behavior. Hence, the items in religious dogma earned a loading factor less than 0.4. Waingapu is an area where there has been no conflict between religious communities for more than a century. The only incident that almost became an interreligious conflict occurred in 1997 in Kambera District. Religious leaders resolved the interreligious incident in 1997 shortly. Only a part of the Kambera community experienced this incident, so the majority of the subjects had no experience in encountering the interreligious incident. The loading factor of PII items was <0.4 because the items were arranged based on specific events in 1997, which most Waingapu people did not suffered from.
The weakness in this research is that the sampling only included the criteria for residence as a cluster. Simultaneously, the external validity will be more substantial if the sampling considers other criteria such as religion, gender, and education level in each cluster.
In the future, further research is encouraged to test the validity of the construct using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach. CFA will uncover how well the cohesion and internal attribution factors can represent the variable of Interreligious Harmony. The CFA test should be conducted in two places: Waingapu and other parts of Indonesia with different cultural dimensions. The goal is that the CFA test can discover whether the Cohesion and Internal Attribution factors are cultural-free or cultural-bound.

CONCLUSION
Thus, it can be determined that the 26 items on the Interreligious Harmony scale are valid in respect to content. However, at the EFA stage, there are only seven items that can make up theoretical factors. The seven theoretical factors form two theoretical factors on the interreligious harmony scale: Cohesion and Internal Attribution.