Testlerde Adillik ve Uyarlamalar: Bibliyometrik ve Sistematik Bir Analiz (2000–2024)

Öz

Bu çalışma, test adilliği ve sınav uyarlamaları üzerine 2000-2024 yılları arasında Scopus veritabanında yayımlanan 63 makaleyi bibliyometrik ve sistematik inceleme yöntemleriyle analiz etmiştir. Amaç, test adilliği çalışmalarının yıllara, ülkelere, dergilere, anahtar kelimelere ve temalara göre dağılımını incelemek ve alana katkıları değerlendirmektir. PRISMA yöntemiyle seçilen makaleler, “test fairness”, “test accommodations”, “access arrangements” ve “disabilities” anahtar kelimeleriyle taranmıştır. Bulgular, test adilliği çalışmalarının 2013 sonrası arttığını, 2019 ve 2023’te sekizer makaleyle zirve yaptığını göstermektedir. ABD (n=101) en fazla katkı sağlayan ülkedir; İngiltere (n=17) ve Avustralya (n=10) takip eder. Türkiye 4 yayınla katkı sağlamıştır. Educational Assessment (n=5) en çok yayın yapılan dergidir. “Assessment”, “fairness” ve “accommodations” en sık kullanılan anahtar kelimelerdir. Sistematik inceleme, çalışmaları beş temada sınıflandırmıştır: dilsel faktörler, sınav uyarlamaları, engelli öğrenciler ve erişilebilirlik, adillik-geçerlilik çerçeveleri ve politika-tarihsel analizler. Sınav uyarlamaları (n=18) en çok çalışılan tema olup, ek süre ve teknolojik araçların erişimi artırdığı, ancak bazen geçerliliği tehdit ettiği belirtilmiştir. Dilsel karmaşıklık, özellikle İngilizce öğrenen öğrencilerde performansı olumsuz etkilerken, evrensel tasarım ve understandardization-standartlaştırma eksikliği- gibi kavramlar teorik katkılar sunmuştur. Öneriler, evrensel tasarıma dayalı esnek uyarlamalar, daha fazla kültürel çeşitlilik odaklı araştırma ve pilot testlerdir. Bu çalışma, eğitimcilere ve politika yapıcılara daha kapsayıcı sınav uygulamaları için rehber sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Test adilliği
• sınav uyarlamaları
• engelli öğrenciler
• erişilebilirlik

Fairness and Accommodations in Tests: A Bibliometric and Systematic Analysis (2000–2024)

Öz

This study analyzes 63 articles published between 2000 and 2024 in the Scopus database on test fairness and accommodations using bibliometric and systematic review methods. The aim is to examine the distribution of studies by year, country, journal, keywords, and themes, and to evaluate their contributions to the field. Articles were selected using the PRISMA method with keywords "test fairness," "test accommodations," "access arrangements," and "disabilities." Findings show an increase in test fairness studies post-2013, peaking in 2019 and 2023 with eight articles each. The United States (n=101) leads in contributions, followed by the United Kingdom (n=17) and Australia (n=10). Turkey contributed four publications. Educational Assessment (n=5) is the top journal. "Assessment," "fairness," and "accommodations" are the most frequent keywords. The systematic review categorized studies into five themes: linguistic factors, test accommodations, students with disabilities and accessibility, fairness-validity frameworks, and policy-historical analyses. Test accommodations (n=18) are the most studied, with findings indicating that extended time and technological tools enhance access but may sometimes compromise validity. Linguistic complexity negatively impacts English learners’ performance, while concepts like universal design and understandardization offer theoretical advancements. Recommendations include flexible accommodations based on universal design, increased research on cultural diversity, and pilot testing. This study aims to guide educators and policymakers toward more inclusive assessment practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Test fairness
• test accommodations
• students with disabilities
• accessibility

Kaynakça

1. Abedi, J. (2014). The use of computer technology in designing appropriate test accommodations for English language learners. Applied Measurement in Education, 27(4), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2014.944310
2. Abedi, J., Zhang, Y., Rowe, S. E. and Lee, H. (2020). Examining effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English language learners in mathematics: An evidence-based computer accommodation decision system. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(4), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12328
3. Alicia Kim, A., Yumsek, M., Kemp, J. A., Chapman, M. and Gary Cook, H. (2023). Universal tools activation in English language proficiency assessments: A comparison of grades 1–12 English learners with and without disabilities. Language Testing, 40(4), 877–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221149009
4. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
5. Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
6. Bailey, A. L. and Carroll, P. E. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 253–294. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14556074
7. Bennett, R. E. (2023). Toward a theory of socioculturally responsive assessment. Educational Assessment, 28(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2023.2202312
8. Buono, S., and Jang, E. E. (2021). The effect of linguistic factors on assessment of English language learners’ mathematical ability: A differential item functioning analysis. Educational Assessment, 26(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1858783

9. Cahan, S., Nirel, R. and Alkoby, M. (2016). The extra-examination time granting policy: A reconceptualization. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915616537
10. Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 221–256). Praeger Publishers.
11. Camilleri, S., Chetcuti, D. and Falzon, R. (2019). “They labeled me ignorant”: Narratives of Maltese youth with dyslexia on national examinations. SAGE Open, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019855674
12. Cawthon, S. W. (2015). From the margins to the spotlight: Diverse deaf and hard of hearing student populations and standardized assessment accessibility. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2015.0036 Cawthon, S. W. and Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achievement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0023
13. Cawthon, S. W., Ho, E., Patel, P. G., Potvin, D. C. and Trundt, K. M. (2009). Multiple constructs and effects of accommodations on accommodated test scores for students with disabilities. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(18). https://doi.org/10.7275/15345084
14. Cawthon, S. W., Kaye, A. D., Lockhart, L. L. and Beretvas, S. N. (2012). Effects of linguistic complexity and accommodations on estimates of ability for students with learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.002
15. Clark-Gareca, B. (2016). Classroom assessment and English language learners: Teachers’ accommodations implementation on routine math and science tests. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.003
16. De Backer, F., Slembrouck, S. and Van Avermaet, P. (2019). Assessment accommodations for multilingual learners: Pupils’ perceptions of fairness. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(9), 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1571596
17. Dembitzer, L. and Kettler, R. J. (2023). Universally designed accommodations on a reading comprehension test: What do they accomplish? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231170317
18. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. and Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
19. Fensham, P. J. and Cumming, J. J. (2013). “Which child left behind”: Historical issues regarding equity in science assessment. Education Sciences, 3(3), 326–343. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3030326
20. Finch, H., Barton, K. and Meyer, P. (2009). Differential item functioning analysis for accommodated versus nonaccommodated students. Educational Assessment, 14(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190902816264
21. Guzman-Orth, D., Supalo, C. A., Smith, D. W., Lee, O. and King, T. (2021). Equitable STEM instruction and assessment: Accessibility and fairness considerations for special populations. ETS Research Report Series, 2021(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12324
22. Haag, N., Heppt, B., Stanat, P., Kuhl, P. and Pant, H. A. (2013). Second language learners’ performance in mathematics: Disentangling the effects of academic language features. Learning and Instruction, 28, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.001
23. Hipkiss, A., Woods, K. A. and Mccaldin, T. (2021). Students’ use of GCSE access arrangements. British Journal of Special Education, 48(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12347
24. Hjärne, M. S. (2020). Just enough time to level the playing field: Time adaptation in a college admission test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(7), 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788143
25. Hjärne, M. S. and Lyrén, P. E. (2020). Group differences in the value of subscores: A fairness issue. Frontiers in Education, 5, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00055
26. Huenergarde, M. C., Floyd, R. G. and Harris, B. (2023). Current nationwide practices in U.S. test accommodations for active bilingual learners/users of English (ABLE) students. Bilingual Research Journal, 45(3–4), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2022.2155885
27. Johnson, A., Barker, E. and Cespedes, M. V. (2024). Reframing research and assessment practices: Advancing an antiracist and anti-ableist research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 43(3), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12601
28. Karacabey, M. F. (2021). Nitel veri toplama teknikleri. In S. Şen and İ. Yıldırım (Eds.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (pp. 407–424). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
29. Košak-Babuder, M., Kormos, J., Ratajczak, M. and Pižorn, K. (2019). The effect of read-aloud assistance on the text comprehension of dyslexic and non-dyslexic English language learners. Language Testing, 36(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218756946
30. Lane, S. and Leventhal, B. (2015). Psychometric challenges in assessing English language learners and students with disabilities. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 165–214. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14556073
31. Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E. and Christensen, L. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: Twelve years of change, 1993–2005. Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313524
32. Lee, H. S. and Geisinger, K. F. (2014). The effect of propensity scores on DIF analysis: Inference on the potential cause of DIF. International Journal of Testing, 14(4), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2014.922567
33. Leppo, R. H. T., Cawthon, S. W. and Bond, M. P. (2014). Including deaf and hard-of-hearing students with co-occurring disabilities in the accommodations discussion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent029
34. Li, H. and Suen, H. K. (2012). Are test accommodations for English language learners fair? Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.653843
35. Liu, D. and Xu, B. (2017). Test anxiety: Perceptions of American community college nursing students. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 9(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-017-0048-1
36. Mathes, N. E., Witmer, S. E. and Volker, M. A. (2020). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of academic and behavioral support testing accommodations. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 36(3), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2020.1749202
37. Mislevy, R. J., Haertel, G., Cheng, B. H., Ructtinger, L., Debarger, A., Murray, E. and Vendlinski, T. (2013). A “conditional” sense of fairness in assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2–3), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.767614
38. Motteram, J., Spiby, R., Bellhouse, G. and Sroka, K. (2023). Implementation of an accommodations policy for candidates with diverse needs in a large-scale testing system. Language Testing, 40(4), 904–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231166587
39. O’Neill, R., Cameron, A., Burns, E. and Quinn, G. (2020). Exploring alternative assessments for signing deaf candidates. Psychology in the Schools, 57(3), 344–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22326 Ofqual. (2021). Systematic divergence between teacher and test-based assessment: Literature review. Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation Publishers.
40. Okagbue, H. I. and Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). Correlation between the CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor of top-ranked library and information science journals. Scientometrics, 124(1), 797–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03457-x
41. Papuda-Dolińska, B., Knopik, T., Krasowicz-Kupis, G. and Wiejak, K. (2023). The psychological assessment of students with diverse developmental needs – Universal design approach. International Journal of Special Education, 38(3), 47–49. https://doi.org/10.52291/ijse.2023.38.38
42. Rasooli, A., Razmjoee, M., Cumming, J., Dickson, E. and Webster, A. (2021). Conceptualising a fairness framework for assessment adjusted practices for students with disability: An empirical study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 28(3), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1932736
43. Razmjoee, M., Cumming, J. and Wyatt-Smith, C. (2023). A case study of effective classroom assessment adjustments for a student with disability: The role of teacher pedagogical mobility in assessment adjustments. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1178. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121178
44. Ricketts, C., Brice, J.and Coombes, L. (2010). Are multiple choice tests fair to medical students with specific learning disabilities? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9197-8
45. Roschmann, S., Witmer, S. E. and Volker, M. A. (2021). Examining provision and sufficiency of testing accommodations for English learners. International Journal of Testing, 21(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2021.1884872
46. Saka, N., Kleper, D. and Kennet-Cohen, T. (2022). Assessing fairness in selection toward applicants who request accommodations in higher education admissions tests. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 29(4), 441–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2122400
47. Şenel, S. (2021). Assessing measurement invariance of Turkish “Central Examination for Secondary Education Institutions” for visually impaired students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(4), 621–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09345-5
48. Şenel, S. and Kutlu, Ö. (2018). Comparison of two test methods for VIS: Paper-pencil test and CAT. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(5), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1391014
49. Seo, D. G. and Hao, S. (2016). Scale comparability between nonaccommodated and accommodated forms of a statewide high school assessment: Using LZ person-fit. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(3), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915596126
50. Sinharay, S., and Johnson, M. S. (2024). Computation and accuracy evaluation of comparable scores on culturally responsive assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 61(1), 5–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12381
51. Sireci, S. G. (2020). Standardization and understandardization in educational assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12377
52. Sireci, S. G. and Faulkner-Bond, M. (2015). Promoting validity in the assessment of English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 215–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14557003
53. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E. and Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004457
54. Solano-Flores, G. (2014). Probabilistic approaches to examining linguistic features of test items and their effect on the performance of English language learners. Applied Measurement in Education, 27(4), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2014.944308
55. Solano-Flores, G. (2019). Examining cultural responsiveness in large-scale assessment: The matrix of evidence for validity argumentation. Frontiers in Education, 4, 43. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00043
56. Solano-Flores, G., Chia, M. and Kachchaf, R. (2019). Design and use of pop-up illustration glossaries as accessibility resources for second language learners in computer-administered tests in a large-scale assessment system. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(4), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1611338
57. Stanczak, A., Aelenei, C., Pironom, J., Toczek-Capelle, M. C., Rohmer, O. and Jury, M. (2024). Can students with special educational needs overcome the “success” expectations? Social Psychology of Education, 27(3), 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09806-x
58. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
59. Svetina, D., Dai, S. and Wang, X. (2017). Use of cognitive diagnostic model to study differential item functioning in accommodations. Behaviormetrika, 44(2), 313–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-017-0021-0
60. Thurlow, M. L. and Kopriva, R. J. (2015). Advancing accessibility and accommodations in content assessments for students with disabilities and English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 331–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14556076
61. Turkan, S. and Buzick, H. M. (2016). Complexities and issues to consider in the evaluation of content teachers of English language learners. Urban Education, 51(2), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914543111
62. Vidal Rodeiro, C. and Macinska, S. (2022). Equal opportunity or unfair advantage? The impact of test accommodations on performance in high-stakes assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 29(4), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2121680
63. Wei, X. and Zhang, S. (2024). Extended time accommodation and the academic, behavioral, and psychological outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57(4), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231195624
64. Witmer, S. E. and Bouck, E. C. (2023). Predictors of accessibility tool use on a low-stakes computer-based math test. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231152477
65. Woods, K., James, A. and Hipkiss, A. (2018). Best practice in access arrangements made for England’s General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs): Where are we 10 years on? British Journal of Special Education, 45(3), 236–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12221
66. Woods, K., Mccaldin, T., Hipkiss, A., Tyrell, B. and Dawes, M. (2019). Linking rights, needs, and fairness in high-stakes assessments and examinations. Oxford Review of Education, 45(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1494555
67. Yang, X. (2020). Assessment accommodations for emergent bilinguals in mainstream classroom assessments: A targeted literature review. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1681615
68. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (n.d.). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
69. Young, J. W., Cho, Y., Ling, G., Cline, F., Steinberg, J. and Stone, E. (2008). Validity and fairness of state standards-based assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13(2–3), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190802394388
70. Zhu, J. and Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8