2018 2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICon EEI 2018), Batam - Indonesia, 16th-17th
October 2018
COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAINTY FACTOR
VS DEMPSTER-SHAFER IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE
ADOLESCENT LEARNING STYLES
Wita Yulianti Diki Arisandi
Departement of Informatics Engineering, Departement of Informatics Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Universitas Abdurrab, Universitas Abdurrab,
Pekanbaru, Indonesia Pekanbaru, Indonesia
wita.yulianti@univrab.ac.id diki@univrab.ac.id
Abstract— Adolescent is a transition from child to adulthood. In
this phase, many teenagers do not know their learning style, whether
auditory, visual or kinesthetic. To analyze the way of adolescent
learning required counseling from a psychologist. Furthermore, To
maintain the objectivity of advice, technology can help the
psychologists to build an expert system. This research discussed the
expert system to determine of adolescent learning styles based on
expert knowledge by comparing the effectiveness of demster-Shafer
and certainty factor by referring at the process of calculation or
processed data effectively and generating accurate confidence
values. The results can be a reference for psychologists in
determining learning styles so that it can be developed into an expert
system application-based technology.
Keywords— Demster-Shafer, certainty factor, expert system,
psychologist, learning styles.
I. INTRODUCTION
Adolescents are individuals who are at a stage of
development toward maturity, along with a process of growth,
they will try different ways to find the learning style. Learning
styles can correlate with their success in going through the
activities in the school. If a teenager can see the right learning
style by themselves, they will have a good scholar achievement
as well [1].
The number of adolescents (aged 15-24 years) in Indonesia
in 2018 has reached 40 million more or more than 20% of the
total population of Indonesia. That is, there is an excellent job
for parents, educational counselors or other parties who have
the authority and responsibility in helping teens to find the right
learning style. This matter becomes vital because teenagers are
the successor of generations that will continue living in the
nation [2].
Learning styles can be interpreted as how students absorb
the information provided by teachers and how to organize and
process data that has been obtained [3]. In the process of
incorporating information, adolescents can use three modalities;
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. Every human being, especially
teenagers, primarily use the three patterns in absorbing
information. However, each adolescent has one of the most
dominant learning styles among the three modalities [4].
Psychology has become the science that studying learning
style or modality. The science of psychology is a science that
does not rule out the use of technology involved in it [5]. In
practice, psychology is still mostly a conventional method in the
978-1-5386-6000-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 46
Auliya Syaf
Departement of Psychology, Faculty of
Psychology,
Universitas Abdurrab,
Pekanbaru, Indonesia
auliya.syaf@univrab.ac.id
process of understanding and studying the psychological side of
an object. The object here is the human being, with all their
attitudes and behaviors. By observing the style of adolescent
learning, the combination of psychology and technology allows
doing, by making a system based on technology-based and
expert knowledge called expert system, a branch of artificial
intelligence [6],[7].
In this study will be discussed how to create an expert
system by comparing the Dempster-Shafer and Certainty factor
methods. Both of these methods using the weight of the value
in doing the process based on the input of the answer [8]. By
comparing the two methods will be seen effectiveness in
determining teenage learning style. From the results, experts or
psychologists and educators can be assisted in examining the
modalities or learning styles of adolescents. As for academics
or practitioners in the field of technology, it will be obtained the
result that which method is most useful in determining the
learning style of children.
II. THEORY
A. Adolescent
Adolescence is a stage of development that is still in the
growth and development period. Adolescence is a growth phase
in which humans have an unstable personality and are looking
for the identity to form a permanent character [9]. According to
psychology, adolescence is a period of transition from early
childhood to early adulthood, at the age of 10 to 12 years and
ends at 18 to 22 years of age. The United Nations (UN) has
established the age range of 15-24 years as the youth age in the
framework of their decision in determining the year 1985 as the
International Youth Year. In Indonesia, for the adolescent limits
that close to the UN limits on youth is at the age of 11-24 years
and haven’t married yet [10].
B. Learning Styles
Learning styles are a combination of how one can absorb,
organize, and process information [11]. In psychology, three
learning styles can be identified [12], [13], there are:
 2018 2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICon EEI 2018), Batam - Indonesia, 16th-17th
October 2018

1. Visual Learning Style

Teens who have a visual learning style, their essential role
is the eye (visual). They tend to learn through what is seen. The
teenager who has this style should see the body language and
facial expression of his teacher to understand the subject matter.
They tend to sit in front to see clearly. They think of using
images in their brains and learning faster by using visual
displays, such as diagrams, picture books, and videos.
2. Auditorial Learning Style
Teenagers of the auditory type rely on their learning through
the sense of the ear (hearing instrument). Teenagers with an
auditory learning style can learn faster by using verbal
discussions and listening to what the teacher says. They can
digest well the information conveyed through tone of voice,
pitch (high low), the speed of speech and other auditory matters.
The written report is sometimes hard to accept by an auditory-
style adolescent. This kind of stylish teenager can usually
memorize faster by reading the text aloud and listening to the
tapes.
3. Kinesthetic Learning Style
Teens who have kinesthetic learning styles learn through
moving, touching, and doing activities. Teenagers with this type
of learning style cannot to sit for extended listening to the lesson
and feel able to learn. They will be better if the process is
accompanied by physical activity or activity. The advantage,
they can coordinate a team in addition to the ability to control
his gestures. The kinesthetic learning style tends to speak
slowly, response to physical attention, touches the material to
gain attention, stands up close when talking to people.
D. Certainty Factor
In the theory of certainty (Certainty Theory), as well as
fuzzy logic [17], uncertainty is represented by the degree of
trust. Certainty theory underlies the use of Certainty Factor
(CF). Certainty Factor is a method to prove whether a fact is
certain or uncertain in the form of a metric that is usually used
in expert systems. This method is particularly suitable for expert
systems to diagnose something uncertain. The Certainty Factor
introduced by Shortliffe Buchanan in the making of MYCIN
Certainty Factor (CF) is the value of the clinical parameters
given by MYCIN to indicate the amount of the trust [18].
Certainty Factor is defined as an equation:
( , )= ( , )− ( , )
The basic form of the Certainty Factor formula is a rule IF E E
H is as indicated by the equation:
( , )= ( , )∗ ( , )
If all the antecedent evidence is known with certainty then the
equation will be:
( , )= ( , )
In the application, CF (H, E) is the value of certainty given by
the expert to a rule, while CF (E, e) is the value of trust given
by the user to the symptoms experienced.

III. METHODS
C. Dempster-Shafer
A. Research Framework
Dempster-Shafer's (DF) theory is a combination,
representation, and propagation of uncertainty, in which this In conducting this research, researchers are guided by the
theory has some characteristics that are intuitive by the way an research framework that can be seen in Figure 1 as follows:
expert thinks, but a strong mathematical basis [14]. In general,
the Dempster-Shafer theory is written in an interval: [Belief,
Plausibility] [15]. Belief (Bel) is a measure of the strength of
evidence in favor of a proposition set. If the value (zero) then
identify that there is no evidence, and if the value 1 indicates a
certainty. Plausibility (Pl) is denoted as: Pl (s) = 1 - Bel (¬s).
Plausibility is also worth 0 to 1. If we are sure of ¬s, then it can
be said that Bel (¬s) = 1, and Pl (¬s) = 0. In Shafer Dempster
theory we recognize the existence of a frame of discernment
denoted by θ. This frame is the universe of speech from a set of
hypotheses [16].
The aim is to relate the trust size of θ elements. Not all pieces
of evidence directly support each element. Therefore, density
function is probable (m). The m value not only defines the
elements θ only but also all its subset. Thus if θ contains n
elements, then the subset θ is n 2. The sum of all m in subset θ
equals 1. If there is no information to select the hypothesis, then
the value: m {θ} = 1.0 If X is a subset of θ, with m1 as its density
function, and Y is also a subset of θ with m2 as its density
function, a combination of m1 and m2 as m3 can be formed, Figure 1. Research Framework
i.e.:
∑ ∩ = ( ). ( )
3( ) =
1−∑ ∩ =∅ ( ). ( )

47
 2018 2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICon EEI 2018), Batam - Indonesia, 16th-17th
October 2018

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Table 2. Learning Style By Its Belief and Plausibility
Characteristic Belief Plausibility
A. Cases V1 0,7 0,3
We took the observation data from psychologists when they V2 0,6 0,4
observed 50 teenagers with ages ranging from 11 to 24 years for V3 0,5 0,5
three months, the effects we summarized into three dominant V4 0,5 0,5
cases experienced in adolescents as shown in table 1 below: V5 0,4 0,6
V6 0,3 0,7
Table 1. The Sample Case V7 0,3 0,7
Code Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 V8 0,3 0,7
VISUAL Yes No Yes No Yes No V9 0,3 0,7
V1 √ √ √ V10 0,3 0,7
V2 √ √ √ V11 0,3 0,7
V3 √ √ √ V12 0,2 0,8
V4 √ √ √
A1 0,7 0,3
V5 √ √ √
V6 √ √ √
A2 0,6 0,4
V7 √ √ √ A3 0,6 0,4
V8 √ √ √ A4 0,5 0,5
V9 √ √ √ A5 0,5 0,5
V10 √ √ √ A6 0,5 0,5
V11 √ √ √ A7 0,5 0,5
V12 √ √ √ A8 0,4 0,6
AUDITORIAL A9 0,3 0,7
A1 √ √ √
A10 0,2 0,8
A2 √ √ √
A3 √ √ √ A11 0,2 0,8
A4 √ √ √ A12 0,2 0,8
A5 √ √ √ K1 0,7 0,3
A6 √ √ √ K2 0,7 0,3
A7 √ √ √ K3 0,7 0,3
A8 √ √ √ K4 0,7 0,3
A9 √ √ √ K5 0,6 0,4
A10 √ √ √
K6 0,5 0,5
A11 √ √ √
A12 √ √ √ K7 0,4 0,6
KINESTHETIC K8 0,4 0,6
K1 √ √ √ K9 0,3 0,7
K2 √ √ √ K10 0,3 0,7
K3 √ √ √ K11 0,3 0,7
K4 √ √ √ K12 0,2 0,8
K5 √ √ √
K6 √ √ √
K7 √ √ √ 2. Dempster-Shafer formula:
K8 √ √ √
K9 √ √ √ ∑ ∩ = ( ). ( )
K10 √ √ √ 3( ) =
1−∑ ∩ =∅ ( ). ( )
K11 √ √ √
K12 √ √ √ This formula as guidance for density value by combining
V= Visual, A=Auditorial, K=Kinesthetic several characteristics of learning styles. Combination rules in
calculating the density of several characteristics in table 2.
B. Dempster-Shafer
3. Results obtained by Dempster-Shafer method for three cases
The calculations based on Dempster-Shafer to find out the as in table 1 and 2.
learning style for adolescents with the characteristics found in
adolescents by calculating the value of weight or amount of Table 3. Result By Dempster-Shafer
confidence (belief value). Cases Visual Auditorial Kinesthetic Conclusion
1 98,27% 99,81% 99,94% Kinesthetic
1. Determine the value of plausibility by using belief value. The 2 97,94% 99,28% 91,12% Auditorial
formula for determining the amount of plausibility is as 3 88,99% 99,48% 95,06% Auditorial
follows.
P1(θ ) = 1 − Bel C. Certainty Factor
Table 3 is a plausibility value from the belief value or weight The use of the certainty factor method in determining the
value of each learning style characteristic, obtained from the learning style of the adolescent by its characteristics. The
expert. following table is a feature of learning styles with the specified
weight from the expert.

48
 2018 2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICon EEI 2018), Batam - Indonesia, 16th-17th
October 2018

Table 4. Characteristics of Learning Style By Weight CFcombine = CF old + CF characteristic * (1 – CFold)

Characteristic Weight
After obtaining the certainty factor value, then calculating
V1 0,7
the combine factor certainty based on the certainty factor value
V2 0,6
by combining several values of certainty factor of the
V3 0,5
characteristics of the learning style
V4 0,5
V5 0,4
V6 0,3 3. The results obtained by certainty factor method for three
V7 0,3 samples or cases as in the table 4 and 5.
V8 0,3
V9 0,3 Table 6. Value of Trust with Certainty Factor
V10 0,3 Case Visual Auditorial Kinesthetic Conclusion
V11 0,3 1 73,3% 79,8% 83,4% Kinesthetic
V12 0,2 2 72,6% 77,4% 76,7% Auditorial
A1 0,7 3 74,3% 78,1% 77,4% Auditorial
A2 0,6
A3 0,6
A4 0,5 D. Comparison of Dempster-Shafer Method and Certainty
A5 0,5 Factor
A6 0,5 By the computation process using this two methods, we are
A7 0,5 comparing the result from three cases in determining learning
A8 0,4 styles of teenagers. We have obtained the results as in the
A9 0,3 following table.
A10 0,2
A11 0,2 Table 7. Conclusions from the comparison between
A12 0,2 CF and DS
K1 0,7 Dempster-Shafer Certainty Factor
Case
K2 0,7 LS Percentage LS Percentage
K3 0,7 1 Kinesthetic 99,94% Kinesthetic 83,4%
K4 0,7 2 Auditorial 99,28% Auditorial 77,4%
K5 0,6 3 Auditorial 99,48% Auditorial 78,1%
K6 0,5
K7 0,4 Based on table 7, it can be seen the comparison of these two
K8 0,4 methods in determining learning styles for an adolescent. The
K9 0,3 result from these two methods, based on the first case is
K10 0,3 kinesthetic by Dempster-Shafer method (99,94%) and Certainty
K11 0,3 Factor (83,4%), for the second and third case, are auditorial by
K12 0,2 Dempster Shafer method (99,28% and 99,48%) and Certainty
Factor (77,4% and 78,1%). This research is also inline with the
Table 5. Answers In Weight Values study form setyarini et al (2013), where the result was
Answer Weight Dempster-Shaver has a better result as an expert system tools,
Yes 0,3 but Certainty factor has an excellence on the computational
No 0,2 epoch [19] .

The weight values in table 5 were acquired from our
expert in adolescent learning styles. Here's a calculation with
three rules to calculate a certainty factor for each of the
characteristics.
1. Certainty factor single premis rules:
CF[h,e] = CF[e] * CF[rule]
= CF[user] * CF[expert]
The equation is a calculation of looking for the certainty
factor value of the weight values of each characteristic of
learning styles and answers to the statement of aspects of
learning styles.
2. If there is a similar concluded rules or more, then the next
CF is calculated by the equation:
V. CONCLUSION
After doing the computation process by Dempster-Shafer
and Certainty Factor based on three sample cases, it can be
concluded as follows:
1. Both methods, certainty factor and Dempster-Shafer results
in a probability or confidence value of each learning style, in
which the highest probability or highest trust value will be
the determination of the learning style of the teenager.
2. In determining of in beliefs between two methods, Dempster-
Shafer has greater confidence, reaching 80 - 100 or 80% -
100% than Certainty Factor (70-80 or 70 % - 80%).
3. From three cases by Dempster-Shafer and Certainty Factor
method, it was obtained for the first case of kinesthetic from
Dempster-Shafer (99,94%) and Certainty Factor (83,4%).
For the second and third case, Dempster-Shafer computation

49
 2018 2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICon EEI 2018), Batam - Indonesia, 16th-17th
October 2018
was reaching 99.28% and 99.48%, but certainty Factor only
77.4% and 78.1%.
4. The Dempster-Shafer method of obtaining trust values is
superior to the range 80-100 than the certainty factor method
with a range of 70-80. But the manual process of the certainty
factor method is faster in the calculation process than the
Dempster-Shafer method.
5. The Dempster-Shafer method and the certainty factor
method in determining a child's learning style obtain the
same results and according to the results of a conventional
psychological test.
6. These two methods can be implemented in the expert system
of determining the learning style in helping psychology
experts in determining the learning styles that are based on
information technology. But the level of effectiveness in
deciding learning styles is the Dempster-Shafer method seen
from the range of confidence values obtained
REFERENCES
[1] H. Lestary and Sugiharti, “Perilaku Berisiko Remaja Di Indonesia
Menurut Survey Kesehatan Reproduksi Remaja Indonesia (SKRRI)
Tahun 2007,” J. Kesehat. Reproduksi, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 136–144,
2011.
[2] K. Roberts, “The end of the long baby-boomer generation,” J. Youth
Stud., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 479–497, 2012.
[3] M. Komarraju, S. J. Karau, R. R. Schmeck, and A. Avdic, “The Big
Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement,”
Pers. Individ. Dif., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 472–477, 2011.
[4] C. A. Rahmawati, M. M. E., & Budiningsih, “Pengaruh Mind
Mapping dan Gaya Belajar Terhadap Pemahaman Konsep Siswa
Pada Pembelajaran IPA,” J. Inov. Teknol. Pendidik., vol. 1, no. 2, pp.
123–138, 2014.
[5] P. A. Kirschner and J. J. G. van Merriënboer, “Do Learners Really
Know Best? Urban Legends in Education,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 48,
no. 3, pp. 169–183, 2013.
[6] D. Arisandi, “Pengujian Rule Pada Sistem Pakar Penanganan Cedera
Olahraga Bola Basket,” RABIT (Jurnal Teknol. dan Sist. Inf.
UNIVRAB), vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 94–103, 2016.
[7] D. Arisandi and A. Saputra, “Aplikasi Sistem Pakar untuk
Menentukan Gaya Belajar Anak Usia Sekolah Dasar,” Digit. Zo. J.
Teknol. Inf. Dan Komun., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 12–17, 2015.
50
[8] N. Aida and Y. Hendra, “Analisa Metode Forward Chaining dan
Certainty Factor dalam Mendiagnosa Penyakit Lambung pada
Manusia,” vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 77–85, 2016.
[9] E. Mulyatiningsih, “The Analysis of Character Education Models for
Children, Adolescents and Adults,” Ft Uny, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–18,
2010.
[10] O. M. Kaparang, “ANALISA GAYA HIDUP REMAJA DALAM
MENGIMITASI BUDAYA POP KOREA MELALUI TELEVISI
(Studi pada siswa SMA Negeri 9, Manado),” Acta Diurna, vol. II, no.
2, 2013.
[11] A. Priyatna, Pahami Gaya Belajar Anak! Elex Media Komputindo,
2013.
[12] Y. Chania, M. Haviz, D. Sasmita, J. Sudirman, N. Kubu, and R.
Limokaum, “Hubungan Gaya Belajar Dengan Hasil Belajar Siswa
Pada Pembelajaran Biologi Kelas X Sman 2 Sungai Tarab Kabupaten
Tanah Datar,” J. Sainstek. ISSN 2085-8019, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 77–84,
2016.
[13] Qomariyah, “Pengaruh Gaya Belajar terhadap Prestasi Belajar Siswa
SMA Negeri I Blega,” J. KOPASTA, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 13–17, 2010.
[14] E. G. Wahyuni and W. Prijodiprodjo, “Prototype Sistem Pakar untuk
Mendeteksi Tingkat Resiko Penyakit Jantung Koroner dengan
Metode Dempster-Shafer,” IJCCS (Indonesian J. Comput. Cybern.
Syst., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 133–144, 2013.
[15] M. Sallak, W. Schön, and F. Aguirre, “Reliability assessment for
multi-state systems under uncertainties based on the Dempster-Shafer
theory,” IIE Trans. (Institute Ind. Eng., vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 995–1007,
2013.
[16] Y. N. Istiqomah and A. Fadlil, “Sistem pakar untuk mendiagnosa
penyakit saluran pencernaan menggunakan metode dempster shafer,”
J. Sarj. Tek. Inform., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 32–41, 2013.
[17] D. Arisandi, I. Puspitasari, and Annisah, “Diagnosa gangguan
perkembangan anak dengan metode fuzzy expert system Diagnosa
Gangguan Perkembangan Anak Dengan Metode Fuzzy Expert
System,” Digit. Zo. J. Teknol. Inf. Dan Komun., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–
9, 2017.
[18] I. Sumatorno, D. Arisandi, A. P. U. Siahaan, and Mesran, “Expert
System of Catfish Disease Determinants Using Certainty Factor
Method,” Int. J. Recent Trends Eng. Res., vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 202–209,
2017.
[19] A. P. Eka Setyarini, Darma Putra, “The Analysis of Comparison of
Expert System of Diagnosing Dog Disease by Certainty Factor
Method and Dempster-Shafer Method,” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues,
vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 576–584, 2013.