Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş Matematik Alt Testi Asıl Sınav ve Mazeret Sınavlarının Madde Tepki Kuramına Göre Eşitlenmesi

Year 2017, , 1900 - 1915, 08.12.2017

Emrah Gül , Çilem Doğan Gül Ömay Çokluk Bökeoğlu , Mustafa Özkan

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.32772-363973

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacını TEOG asıl sınav matematik alt testi ile
TEOG mazeret sınavı matematik alt testlerinin Madde Tepki Kuramı’na (MTK)
dayalı yöntemler kullanılarak eşitlenmesi ve hangi eşitleme yönteminin daha
uygun olduğuna karar verilmesi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın temel araştırma
niteliği taşıdığı ifade edilebilir. Testlerin eşitlenmesi için, madde ve birey
parametreleri flexMIRT programı kullanılarak kestirilmiştir. Eşitleme işlemi R
“equateIRT” paketi kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlar,
en düşük eşitleme hatasının karakteristik eğri yöntemlerinden elde edildiğini
ortaya koymaktadır. Bu yöntemlerden de en düşük eşitleme hatasının
Stocking-Lord yönteminden elde edildiği belirtilebilir. Ortalama-Ortalama
yöntemi ise en yüksek eşitleme hatası üreten yöntemdir. Bu araştırmadan elde
edilen bulgular Stocking-Lord yönteminin TEOG asıl sınav ve mazeret sınavı
kapsamında yer alan matematik alt testlerinin eşitlenmesinde daha uygun
olduğunu göstermiştir. 

Keywords

TEOG, Test Eşitleme, Madde Tepki Kuramı

References

• Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement (p. 509-600). Washington: American Council on Education.
• Angoff, W. H. (1981). Summary and derivation of equating methods used at ETS. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.). Test Equating. New York: Academic Press.
• Baker, F. B. & Al-Karni, A. (1991). A Comparison of two procedures for computing IRT Equating Coefficients. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28 (2), 147-162.
• Barnard, J. J. (1996). In search for equity in educational measurement: Traditional versus modern equating methods. Paper presented at ASEESA’s national conference at the HRSC Conference Centre, Pretoria, South Africa.
• Battauz, M. (2013). IRT test equating in complex linkage plans. Psychometrika, 78, 464-480.
• Battauz, M. (2015). equateIRT: An R Package for IRT Test Equating. Accepted for publication in Journal of Statistical Software.
• Braun, H. I., & Holland, P. W. (1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9–49). New York: Academic.
• Casbarro, J. (2004). Reducing anxiety in the era of highstakes testing. Principals, 83(5), 36-38.
• Chu, K. L. & Kamata, A. (2000). Nonequivalent Group Equating via 1-P HGLLM. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
• Cizek, G. J. (2001). Cheating to the test. Education Matters Journal, 1(1), 40-47.
• Cohen, A. S. & Kim, S. H. (1998). An ınvestigation of linking methods under the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22 (2), 116-130.
• Dorans, N. J. (2000). Research notes: distinctions among classes of linkages. The College Board, Office of Research and Development.
• Haebara, T. (1980). Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Japanese Psychological Research, 22 (3), 144-149.
• Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston: Academic Puslishers Group.
• Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
• Hanson, B. A. & Beguin, A. A. (2002). Obtaining a common scale for ıtem response theory ıtem parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the common-ıtem equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26 (1), 3–24.
• Hung, P., Wu, Y., & Chen, Y. (1991). IRT Item Parameter Linking: Relevant Issues for the Purpose of Item Banking. Paper presented at the International Academic Symposium on Psychological Measurement, Taiwan.
• Karkee, T. B. & Wright, K. R. (2004, April). Evaluation of linking methods for placing three parameter logistic ıtem parameter estimates onto rasch scale. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research, San Diego, California.
• Kaskowitz, G. S. & De Ayala, R. J. (2001). The effect of error in ıtem parameter estimates on the test response function method of linking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25 (1), 39-52.
• Kim, S. & Kolen, M. J. (2006). Robustness of Format Effects of IRT Linking Methods for Mixed Format Tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 19 (4), 357-381
• Kim, S. & Kolen, M. J. (2004). Optimally defining criterion functions for the characteristic curve procedures in the ırt scale linking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
• Kim, S. & Lee, W. (2004). IRT Scale linking methods for mixed-format tests (ACT research report 2004). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
• Kim, S. & Lee, W. C. (2006). An Extension of Four IRT Linking Methods for Mixed-Format Tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43 (1), 53–76.
• Kim, S. & Song, M.-Y. (2004). Least squares estimation of IRT scale linking coefficients under the graded response model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
• Kolen, M. J. & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.
• Loyd, B. H. & Hoover, H. D. (1980). Vertical equating using the rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17 (3), 179-193.
• Marco, G. L. (1977). Item characteristic curve solutions to three ıntractable testing problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14 (2), 139- 160.
• Mâsse, L. C., Allen, D., Wılson, M., ve Wıllıams, G. (2006). Introducing equating methodologies to compare test scores from two different self-regulation scales”. Health Education Research 21, 110-120.
• Ogasawara, H. (2001). Standard errors of ıtem response theory equating/linking by response function methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25 (1), 53–67.
• Raju, N. S. & Arenson, E. A. (April, 2002). Developing a common metric in ıtem response theory: an area-minimization approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
• Resnick, M. (2004). The educated student: Defining and advancing student achievement. Alexandria VA: National School Boards Association
• Stocking, M. L. & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in ıtem response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7 (2), 201- 210.
• Tanguma, J. (2000). “Equating test scores using the linear method: A primer.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. Dallas, TX.
• Way, W. D. & Tang, K. L. (1991, April 4-6). A comparison of four logistic model equating methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.