Öğrencilerin Alıcı Sözcük Dağarcığının Sıklık Dilimlerine Göre Belirlenmesine Yönelik Ölçme Aracı Geliştirme

The original article was published on April 28, 2026. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/aded/article/1873846

Erratum Note

Dergimizin 14. cilt, 2. sayısında yayımlanan bu makalenin kaynakça bölümü gözden geçirilmiş; bu süreçte metin içinde atıf yapılmadığı hâlde kaynakçada yer alan bazı kaynakların olduğu görülmüş, yine bazı kaynaklara ait DOI bilgilerinde eksiklik ve yanlışlıklar olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu doğrultuda gerekli düzenlemeler yapılarak kaynakça güncellenmiş ve makalenin düzeltilmiş sürümü yeniden yayımlanmıştır. Bu süreçte makalenin içeriğinde herhangi bir değişiklik yapılmamış olup yapılan düzenlemeler yalnızca kaynakça ile sınırlıdır.

Abstract

Bu çalışmada anadili Türkçe olan öğrencilerin alıcı sözcük dağarcığını ölçmek amacıyla geliştirilen Sıklık Odaklı Alıcı Sözcük Dağarcığı Ölçme Aracı (SASÖ) tanıtılmış ve aracın Klasik Test Kuramı (KTK), Madde Tepki Kuramı (MTK) ve Genellenebilirlik Kuramına (GK) göre geçerlik ile güvenirliğine ilişkin elde edilen kanıtlar sunulmuştur. Araç, sözcük sıklığı temel alınarak toplam 195 madde olacak biçimde yapılandırılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri Burdur’da öğrenim gören 5-8. sınıf düzeyindeki toplam 549 öğrenciden toplanmıştır. KTK sonuçları, aracın çok yüksek iç tutarlılığa iye olduğunu göstermiştir. MTK kapsamında uygulanan iki parametreli lojistik model (2PL) sonucunda, maddelerin büyük çoğunluğunun modele uyum sağladığı belirlenmiştir. Küresel uyum göstergelerine (SRMR, SRMSR, 100×MADCOV) göre model–veri uyumu çok iyi düzeydedir. Genellenebilirlik katsayısı ve KR20 güvenirlik katsayısı aracın güvenirliğinin ve genellenebilirliğinin çok yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, SASÖ puanları ile okuma başarısı arasında anlamlı ilişkiler saptanmış ve bu bulgular aracın yapı geçerliğini destekleyici niteliktedir. Sonuç olarak SASÖ, Türkçede alıcı sözcük dağarcığını ölçmek için geliştirilen geçerliği ve güvenilirliği çok yönlü olarak kanıtlanmış bir ölçme aracı görünümündedir. Bu ölçme aracı hem süreç hem de sonuç odaklı değerlendirmede kullanılabilecek çağdaş bir ölçme aracı niteliğindedir.

Keywords

• Sözcük bilgisi
• sözcük dağarcığı
• sözcük testi
• madde tepki kuramı

Development of A Measurement Tool for Determining Students' Receptive Vocabulary Profiles Based on Frequency Bands

The original article was published on April 28, 2026. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/aded/article/1873846

Erratum Note

The reference list of this article, published in Volume 14, Issue 2 of our journal, was reviewed. During this process, it was found that some sources were included in the reference list despite not being cited in the text, and that some DOI information was missing or incorrect. Accordingly, the necessary corrections were made, the reference list was updated, and the corrected version of the article was republished. No changes were made to the content of the article, and all revisions were limited exclusively to the reference list.

Abstract

This study introduces the Frequency-Focused Receptive Vocabulary Test (FFRVT), developed to assess students' receptive vocabulary knowledge in Turkish. It presents evidence for its validity and reliability based on Classical Test Theory (CTT), Item Response Theory (IRT), and Generalizability Theory (GT). The instrument comprises 195 frequency-based items. Data were collected from 549 students enrolled in Grades 5-8 in the province of Burdur. Results from CTT analyses indicated very high internal consistency. Analyses conducted using the two-parameter logistic (2PL) model within the IRT framework showed that the vast majority of items demonstrated adequate model fit. Global fit indices (SRMR, SRMSR, and 100 × MADCOV) further confirmed an excellent model–data fit. Both the generalizability coefficient and the KR-20 reliability coefficient indicated that the instrument had very high reliability and generalizability. In addition, significant relationships were observed between FFRVT scores and reading achievement, providing support for the test's construct validity. In conclusion, FFRVT appears to be a psychometrically sound instrument with robust evidence of validity and reliability for assessing receptive vocabulary knowledge in Turkish. As a contemporary measurement tool, it can be effectively employed in both process-oriented and outcome-based assessments.

Keywords

• Vocabulary knowledge
• vocabulary
• vocabulary test
• item response theory

References

1. Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Mersinli, Ü., & Demirhan, U. U. (2017). A frequency dictionary of Turkish: Core vocabulary for learners. Routledge.
2. Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1993). The vocabulary conundrum (Technical Report No. 570). Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
3. Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed.). Marcel Dekker.
4. Baykul, Y. (2015). Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik test kuramı ve uygulaması. Pegem Akademi.
5. Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing, 27(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340194
6. Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. Springer.
7. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage.
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (27. bs.). Pegem Akademi.

9. Cameron, L. (2002). Measuring vocabulary size in English as an additional language. Language Teaching Research, 6(2), 145-173. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr103oa
10. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-276.
11. Chen, W. H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265-289. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986022003265
12. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analiz (A. Alpay, Çev.). Anı.
13. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
14. Çetinkaya, G., Kesici, S., & Polat, B. (2023). Alıcı ve üretici eşdizimlilik bilgisini değerlendirme aracının geliştirilmesi. Dil Dergisi, 174(2), 23-44.
15. D’Anna, C. A., Zechmeister, E. B., & Hall, J. W. (1991). Toward a meaningful definition of vocabulary size. Journal of Literacy Research, 23(1), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969109547729
16. Dağhan, O., & Ülper, H. (2022). Türkçe ders kitaplarını anlamak için bilinmesi gereken sözcük sayılarının belirlenmesi. International Journal of Language Academy, 43, 293-316.
17. Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge University.
18. Dang, T. N. Y., & Webb, S. (2025). Applications of word lists in second language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 58(3), 291-311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000285
19. De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Press.
20. DeMars, C. (2016). Madde tepki kuramı (H. Kelecioğlu, Çev. Ed.). Nobel Akademi.
21. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Ölçek geliştirme: Kuram ve uygulama (T. Totan, Çev.). Nobel Akademi.
22. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Fan, M. (2000). How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investigation into the active and passive vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners. RELC Journal, 31(2), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100205
24. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466-491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
25. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
26. Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 341-363. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.4.341
27. Gyllstad, H., McLean, S., & Stewart, J. (2021). Using confidence intervals to determine adequate item sample sizes for vocabulary tests: An essential but overlooked practice. Language Testing, 38(4), 558-579. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211014555
28. Gyllstad, H., McLean, S., & Stewart, J. (2021). Vocabulary size, growth, and estimates: Advancing theory and practice. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(3), 535-556. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000536 Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage.
29. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205.
30. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 139-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900204
31. Henriksen, B., Albrechtsen, D., & Haastrup, K. (2004). The relationship between vocabulary size and reading comprehension in the L2. Angles on the English-Speaking World, 4, 129-140.
32. Holgado-Tello, F. P., Chacón-Moscoso, S., Barbero-García, I., & Vila-Abad, E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 153-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
33. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.
34. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
35. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
36. Kelecioğlu, H., & Göçer Şahin, S. (2014). Geçmişten günümüze geçerlik. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.31126
37. Keuleers, E., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Brysbaert, M. (2015). Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1665-1692. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1022560
38. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.
39. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). The impact of test length on the reliability of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_3 Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5, 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.11lau
40. Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00260.x
41. Laufer, B., & McLean, S. (2016). Loanwords and Vocabulary Size Test scores: A case of different estimates for different L1 learners. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 202-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1202041
42. Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). Goodness-of-fit assessment of item response theory models. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11(3), 71-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2013.831719
43. Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2014). Assessing fit in structural equation models: A Monte Carlo evaluation of RMSEA versus SRMR confidence intervals. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 366-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915379
44. McLean, S., Kramer, B., & Beglar, D. (2015). The creation and validation of a listening vocabulary levels test. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 741-760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814559809
45. McLean, S., Kramer, B., & Beglar, D. (2015). The development and validation of a listening vocabulary size test. Language Testing, 32(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214559269
46. Meara, P. (1990). A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research, 6(2), 150-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839000600206
47. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). Macmillan.
48. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023002013
49. Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
50. Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2013). Vocabulary size revisited: The link between vocabulary size and academic achievement. Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 151-172. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0007
51. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Newbury House.
52. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University.
53. Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
54. Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00590.x
55. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216000241003
56. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X²: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662160302700402
57. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730
58. Qi, S., Teng, M. F., & Fu, A. (2024). LexCH: A quick and reliable receptive vocabulary size test for Chinese learners. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(2), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0105
59. Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00193
60. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University.
61. Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4(3), 207-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164671
62. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667-696.
63. Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287-297.
64. Schmitt, N. (1999). Relationship between TOEFL vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation, and word-class knowledge. Language Testing, 16(2), 189-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229901600203
65. Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan.
66. Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64(4), 913-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077
67. Schmitt, N., Nation, I. S. P., & Kremmel, B. (2020). Moving the field of vocabulary assessment forward: The need for more sophisticated frameworks. Language Teaching, 53(2), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481900046X
68. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800103
69. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Sage.
70. Şahin, M., & Ülper, H. (2021). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenen öğrencilerin günlük yaşamda bilmeleri gereken sözcük sayılarının belirlenmesi. International Journal of Language Academy, 9(3), 258-279.
71. Tekin, H. (2004). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Yargı.
72. Turgut, M. F. (1997). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme metotları. Yargıcı Matbaası.
73. Ülper, H. (2023). Sözcük ve öğretimi. Pegem Akademi.
74. Ülper, H., & Kiraz, E. (2020). Türkçe öğrenen yabancı öğrenciler açısından gazeteleri okuyabilmek için gereksinim duyulan sözcük sayısının belirlenmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 708-722.
75. Ülper, H., Çetinkaya, G., & Bayat, N. (2017). Okuduğunu anlama testinin geliştirilmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 175-187.
76. van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 457-479. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams074
77. Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050023
78. Webb, S., Sasao, Y., & Ballance, O. (2017). The updated Vocabulary Levels Test. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 33–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.168.1.02web
79. Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168400800201
80. Yıldırım, C. (1983). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (öğretmenler için el kitabı). ÖSYM Eğitim.
81. Zhang, L. J., & Anual, S. B. (2008). The role of vocabulary in reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. RELC Journal, 39(1), 51-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208091141