Compliance behavior with Indonesian language in local government administration: An analysis of the Rasch model
Main Article Content
Abstract
The background of this research arises from the reality that in many multilingual countries, governments mandate the use of national languages in official communication, yet compliance at the local bureaucratic level is often inconsistent. Indonesia represents an important case because, although a strong legal foundation exists, everyday practices reveal significant variation. Previous studies rarely examined institutional compliance using rigorous measurement. This research fills that gap by applying the Rasch model to analyze language compliance behavior within bureaucratic settings and to explore organizational mechanisms that support or weaken compliance in multilingual governance. The study employed a survey of 395 civil servants from ministries, provincial governments, cities/districts, and universities across 18 provinces. The 30-item instrument was calibrated with the Rasch model, positioning respondents and items on a common logit scale. Results showed high reliability (Person = 0.87; Item = 0.96), good model fit, and invariance between groups based on DIF analysis. ANOVA indicated no significant compliance differences by education, employment status, or tenure, suggesting that organizational norms and ideologies matter more than individual demographics. Substantively, findings confirm that bureaucratic language compliance is shaped by organizational culture and enforcement mechanisms rather than personal traits. Methodologically, this research demonstrates the Rasch model’s value for producing valid, reliable, and bias-free measurements, supporting cross-group comparison and long-term monitoring.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
Share
References
Abraham, W. (2018). Andreas Trotzke: The grammar of emphasis. From Information Structure to the expressive dimension. In Folia Linguistica (Vol. 52, Issue 2). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2018-0016
Abu-Elyounes, D. (2020). Contextual Fairness: a Legal and Policy Analysis of Algorithmic Fairness. Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, 2020(1), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3478296
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
Altman, M. (2016). A bounded rationality assessment of the new behavioral economics. In Routledge Handbook of Behavioral Economics (pp. 179–193). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315743479
Andrich, D. (1999). Rating Scale Analysis. In Advances in Measurement in Educational Research and Assessment. MESA press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008043348-6/50008-5
Andrich, D., & Marais, I. (2019). A Course in Rasch Measurement Theory. In © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 (Vol. 41, Issue 8). Springer. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-13-7496-8
Archey, X. (2023). Language Ideology. The Handbook of Dual Language Bilingual Education, 290–304. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003269076-24
Aryadoust, V., Ng, L. Y., & Sayama, H. (2021). A comprehensive review of Rasch measurement in language assessment: Recommendations and guidelines for research. Language Testing, 38(1), 6–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220927487
Asih, D., Setini, M., Soelton, M., Muna, N., Putra, I. G. C., Darma, D. C., & Judiarni, J. A. (2020). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Management Science Letters, 10(14), 3367–3374. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.042
Astley, W. G. (2019). Administrative Science As Socially Constructed Truth. In Postmodern Management Theory (pp. 3–19). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429431678-1
Balla, S. J., & Gormley, W. T. (2020). Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance. In Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance. CQ Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071801376
Bilá, M., & Ivanova, S. V. (2020). Language, culture and ideology in discursive practices. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 219–252. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-219-252
Birken, S. A., Bunger, A. C., Powell, B. J., Turner, K., Clary, A. S., Klaman, S. L., Yu, Y., Whitaker, D. J., Self, S. R., Rostad, W. L., Chatham, J. R. S., Kirk, M. A., Shea, C. M., Haines, E., & Weiner, B. J. (2017). Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research. Implementation Science, 12(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0592-x
Birnbaum, S. (2016). Environmental Co-governance, Legitimacy, and the Quest for Compliance: When and Why Is Stakeholder Participation Desirable? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18(3), 306–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1077440
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2020). Aplicação do modelo de Rasch. Hogrefe.
Boone, W. J. (2016). Rasch analysis for instrument development: why, when, and how? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), rm4.
Boone, W. J., & Staver, J. R. (2020). Wright Maps (Part 3 and Counting...). In Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences (pp. 215–253). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43420-5_16
Bottoms, A. (2019). Understanding compliance with laws and regulations: A mechanism-based approach. In Financial Compliance: Issues, Concerns and Future Directions (pp. 1–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14511-8_1
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics, 1(2), 97–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700001134
Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of The Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings. Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506
Clark, G. L., & Dear, M. (2021). State apparatus: Structures and language of legitimacy. In State Apparatus: Structures and Language of Legitimacy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003119197
Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and Accountability in Policy Design and Implementation: The Common Core State Standards and Implementation Research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080
Conner, M. (2020). Theory of planned behavior. Handbook of Sport Psychology: Fourth Edition, 1–2, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2009.2171
David Orozco. (2019). A System Theory of Compliance Law. Journal of Business Law, 22:2, 244–302.
de Kloet, E. R., de Kloet, S. F., de Kloet, C. S., & de Kloet, A. D. (2019). Top‐down and bottom‐up control of stress‐coping. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 31(3), e12675.
Eckhard, S., & Friedrich, L. (2024). Linguistic Features of Public Service Encounters: How Spoken Administrative Language Affects Citizen Satisfaction. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(1), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac052
Eckhard, S., Friedrich, L., Hautli-Janisz, A., Mueden, V., & Espinoza, I. (2024). A taxonomy of administrative language in public service encounters. International Public Management Journal, 27(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2022.2075062
Elnegahy, S., Jin, H., & Kim, H. (2022). Fairness, Justice, and Language Assessment. In Language Assessment Quarterly (Vol. 19, Issue 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2021.1922412
Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Parry, S. (2016). Addressing the cross-country applicability of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB): A structured review of multi-country TPB studies. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1536
Holmes, S. D., Meadows, M., Stockford, I., & He, Q. (2018). Investigating the Comparability of Examination Difficulty Using Comparative Judgement and Rasch Modelling. International Journal of Testing, 18(4), 366–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1486316
Jackson, J. (2018). Norms, normativity, and the legitimacy of justice institutions: International perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113734
Jalilian, F., Mirzaei-Alavijeh, M., Ahmadpanah, M., Mostafaei, S., Kargar, M., Pirouzeh, R., Bahmani, D. S., & Brand, S. (2020). Extension of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict patterns of marijuana use among young iranian adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061981
Johansson, M., Preuter, M., Karlsson, S., Möllerberg, M.-L., Svensson, H., & Melin, J. (2023). Valid and reliable? Basic and expanded recommendations for psychometric reportingand quality assessment. Open Science Framework, 1–36.
Jolls, C. (2017). BOUNDED RATIONALITY, BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts, 60.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language Planning: From Practice to Theory. In Victoria (Vol. 108). Multilingual Matters.
Kolkowska, E., Karlsson, F., & Hedström, K. (2017). Towards analysing the rationale of information security non-compliance: Devising a Value-Based Compliance analysis method. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.08.005
Kraus, V. B., Collins, J. E., Hargrove, D., Losina, E., Nevitt, M., Katz, J. N., Wang, S. X., Sandell, L. J., Hoffmann, S. C., & Hunter, D. J. (2017). Predictive validity of biochemical biomarkers in knee osteoarthritis: Data from the FNIH OA Biomarkers Consortium. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 76(1), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209252
Kravchenko, A. V. (2016). Language as human ecology: A new agenda for linguistic education. New Ideas in Psychology, 42, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.05.002
Kroskrity, P. V. (2021). Chapter 10. Language ideological assemblages within linguistic anthropology. Crossing Borders, Making Connections, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514371-011
Lauder, A. (2008). the Status and Function of English in Indonesia: a Review of Key Factors. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 12(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v12i1.128
Lê, T., & Short, M. (2009). Linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Critical Discourse Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 17–25). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leeman, J., Baquero, B., Bender, M., Choy-Brown, M., Ko, L. K., Nilsen, P., Wangen, M., & Birken, S. A. (2019). Advancing the use of organization theory in implementation science. Preventive Medicine, 129, 105832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105832
Leslie, K., Nelson, S., Deber, R., & Gilmour, J. (2018). Policy Tensions in Regulatory Reform: Changes to Regulation of Health Professions in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Ontario, Canada. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 8(4), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(17)30180-1
Lim, W. M. (2024). A typology of validity: content, face, convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive validity. Journal of Trade Science, 12(3), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/jts-03-2024-0016
Lima, T. de M., Aguiar, P. M., & Storpirtis, S. (2018). Evaluation of quality indicator instruments for pharmaceutical care services: A systematic review and psychometric properties analysis. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 14(5), 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.05.011
Lundmark, R., Hasson, H., Richter, A., Khachatryan, E., Åkesson, A., & Eriksson, L. (2021). Alignment in implementation of evidence-based interventions: a scoping review. Implementation Science, 16(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01160-w
Mair, C., & Leech, G. N. (2020). Current changes in English syntax. The Handbook of English Linguistics: Second Edition, 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119540618.ch14
Meier, K. J., Compton, M., Polga-Hecimovich, J., Song, M., & Wimpy, C. (2019). Bureaucracy and the Failure of Politics: Challenges to Democratic Governance. Administration and Society, 51(10), 1576–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719874759
Moniruzzaman, M. (2022). Risk of regulatory failure of “risk-based regulation” while using enterprise risk management as a meta-regulatory toolkit. Asian Journal of Economics and Banking, 6(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajeb-05-2021-0067
Muhammad, A. I., & Nurasia, N. (2024). Language Policy and its Role in Shaping National Identity: A Macro-Linguistic Perspective. International Journal of Educational Technology and Society , 1(3), 1–13.
Mustapha, M., Bello, U. M., & Aworo-Okoroh, J. (n.d.). Legitimacy Of The Concepts Primary Language, Native Language, Official Or Semi-Official, Foreign And Second.
Nachbar, T. B. (2016). The rationality of rational basis review. Virginia Law Review, 102(7), 1627–1690.
Oyanedel, R., Gelcich, S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2020). A synthesis of (non-)compliance theories with applications to small-scale fisheries research and practice. Fish and Fisheries, 21(6), 1120–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12490
Pérez-Milans, M. (2016). Language and identity in linguistic ethnography. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity (pp. 83–97). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669816
Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2017). Implementing public policy. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (pp. 89–108). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093192-14
Quach, S., Thaichon, P., Martin, K. D., Weaven, S., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Digital technologies: tensions in privacy and data. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), 1299–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00845-y
Reagan, T. (2016). The Conceptualization of Language Legitimacy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1116950
Saucier, G., Iurino, K., & Thalmayer, A. G. (2020). Comparing predictive validity in a community sample: High-dimensionality and traditional domain-and-facet structures of personality variation. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1120–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2235
Scherer, K., & Scherer, B. (2025). ESG/Climate vs conventional indices: Their difference in climate premium. Finance Research Letters, 81, 107436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107436
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. FAT* 2019 - Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598
Shohamy, E. (2005). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. In Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478.
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care and Research, 57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23108
Thomann, E., van Engen, N., & Tummers, L. (2018). The Necessity of Discretion: A Behavioral Evaluation of Bottom-Up Implementation Theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy024
Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation: A Literature Review and Proposed Framework. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162. OECD Education Working Papers, 162(December), 2–63. www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers
Wiley, T. G., & García, O. (2016). Language Policy and Planning in Language Education: Legacies, Consequences, and Possibilities. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12303
Wong, P. H. (2020). Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness. Philosophy and Technology, 33(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00355-w
Xu, Z., Kandanaarachchi, S., Ong, C. S., & Ntoutsi, E. (2025). Fairness Evaluation with Item Response Theory. WWW 2025 - Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference, 2276–2288. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696410.3714883
Yakimova, V. A. (2017). Substantiation of a compliance control of socially significant organisations on the institutional theory basis. Вестник Пермского Университета. Серия «Экономика» = Perm University Herald. ECONOMY, 12(4), 542–560. https://doi.org/10.17072/1994-9960-2017-4-542-560
Zentz, L. (2014). “Love” the Local,“Use” the National,“Study” the Foreign: Shifting J avanese Language Ecologies in (Post‐) Modernity, Postcoloniality, and Globalization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 24(3), 339–359.
Zhelyazkova, A., & Thomann, E. (2021). Policy implementation. In Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes (pp. 220–240). Springer. https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789622091726.003.0045