Test Eşitleme Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir Bibliyometrik Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmada Web of Science(WoS) veri tabanında yer alan İngilizce veya Türkçe dergilerde yayınlanan test eşitleme anahtar kelimesinin geçtiği araştırmalarının genel yönelimibibliyometrik analiz yoluyla incelenmek istenmiştir. Uygunluk kriterlerini karşılayan 247 çalışma, araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. R-Studio, bibliyometrik paketi kullanılarak veriler WoS’tan elde edilmiştir. 1972-2023 yılları arasında yapılan çalışmalar incelendiğinde en fazla 2011 yılında yayımlandığı görülmüştür. Ülkelere göre kıyaslama yapıldığında USA’da tamamlanan çalışma sayısı diğer ülkelere göre daha fazladır. Atıflar incelendiğinde en fazla atıf von Daiver’e (2004) aittir. En fazla çalışma Applied Psychological Measurement dergisinde yayımlanmıştır. Üretilen çalışmalardaki konu ve temalar incelendiğinde ise “linking (İlişkilendirme/bağlama)” kavramı, “Madde Tepki Kuramı”, “Puan”, “Modeller” gibi kavramlar anahtar kelime olarak test eşitleme kavramıyla birlikte ele alınan kavramlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anahtar Kelimeler: Test Eşitleme
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Eşitleme Yöntemleri
• Web of Science Veri Tabanı

A Bibliometric Analysis on Test Equating Studies

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to examine the general orientation of the studies in which the test equating keyword was used, published in English or Turkish journals in the Web of Science (WoS) database, through bibliometric analysis. 247 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included in the study. Data were obtained from WoS using the R-Studio, bibliometric package. When the studies conducted between 1972-2023 are examined, it is seen that the most published in 2011. When compared by countries, the number of studies completed in the USA is higher than in other countries. When the citations are examined, the most citations belong to von Daiver (2004). The largest number of studies have been published in the journal Applied Psychological Measurement. When the subjects and themes in the produced studies are examined, the concepts such as "linking", "Item Response Theory", "Score", "Models" are the concepts that are considered together with the concept of test equating as keywords.

Keywords

• Test Equating
• Bibliometric Analysis
• Test Equating methods
• Web of Science database

References

1. Albano, A. D. (2016). Equate: An R package for observed-score linking and equating. Journal of Statistical Software, 74, 1-36. http://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v074.i08
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Andersson, B. (2016). Asymptotic standard errors of observed-score equating with polit- omous IRT models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(4), 459–477. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45148403
4. Aria, M., & 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
5. Battauz, M. (2017). Multiple equating of separate IRT calibrations. Psychometrika, 82(3), 610–636. http://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11336-016-9517-x
6. Brossman, B. G., & Lee, W.-C. (2013). Observed score and true score equating procedures for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 460-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662161348408
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
8. Cope, R. T. (1987). How well do the Angoff Design V linear equating methods compare with the Tucker and Levine methods? Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(2), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168701100202

9. Demirus, K. B. (2015). Ortak maddelerin değişen madde fonksiyonu gösterip göstermemesi durumunda test eşitlemeye etkisinin farklı yöntemlerle incelenmesi. [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
10. Donthu, N., Gremler, D. D., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Mapping of Journal of Service Research themes: A 22-year review. Journal of Service Research. Available at http://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520977670032
11. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pattnaik, D., & Lim, W. M. (2021). A bibliometric retrospection of marketing from the lens of psychology: Insights from Psychology & Marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 38(5), 834–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21472.
12. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. & 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
13. Fischer, GH, & Formann, AK (1982). Some applications of logistic latent trait models with linear constraints on the parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 397-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168200600403
14. Flanagan, J. C. (1982). Discussion of" Some issues in test equating.". Test equating. New York: Academic Press.
15. Fraenkel, R.J. & Wallen E.N. (2006). How to Design andEvaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill, New York.
16. Gök, B. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2012). Denk olmayan gruplarda ortak madde deseni kullanılarak madde tepki kuramına dayalı eşitleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 120-136.
17. Gündüz, T. (2015). Test eşitlemede Madde Tepki Kuramına dayalı yetenek parametresine yönelik ölçek dönüştürme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
18. Hambleton, R.K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). A look at psychometrics in the Netherlands. (Tech. Rep. No TM860514) Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED273665).
19. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (2013). Item response theory: Principles and applications. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
20. Han, T., Kolen, M., & Pohlmann, J. (1997). A comparison among IRT true-and observed- score equatings and traditional equipercentile equating. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1002_1
21. Kolen, M. J. (1981). Comparison of traditional and item response theory methods for equating tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18(1), 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1434813
22. Kolen, M. J. (1988). Traditional equating methodology. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 7(4), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00843.x
23. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.
24. Klein, L. W., & Jarjoura, D. (1985). The importance of content representation for common‐ item equating with nonrandom groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(3), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01058.x
25. Lord, F. M. (1984). Maximum likelihood and Bayesian parameter estimation in item response theory (ETS Tech. Rep. No. RR-84-30-DNR). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
26. Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1982). BILOG—Maximum likelihood item analysis and test scoring: LOGISTIC model. Chicago: International Educational Services.
27. Mutluer, C., & Nartgün, Z. (2017). Test equating study concerning to ALES (Academic Personnel And Postgraduate Education Entrance Exam) scores obtained at different times in a year. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(12), 96-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1270
28. Mutluer, C. (2021). Klasik Test Kuramına ve Madde Tepki Kuramına dayalı test eşitleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırması: Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2012 matematik testi örneği. [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
29. Özdemir, B. (2017). Equating TIMSS mathematics subtests with nonlinear equating methods using neat design: circle-arc equating approaches. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(2), 116-132.
30. Pektaş, S. & Kılınç, M. (2016). PISA 2012 Matematik Testlerinden İki Kitapçığın Gözlenen Puan Eşitleme Yöntemleri İle Eşitlenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 432-444. http://doi.org/ : 10.21764/efd.49376
31. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D. & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 10(89), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
32. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
33. Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M. J. ve Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. Educational Measurement, 3, 221-262.
34. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.
35. Salmaner-Doğan, R. & Tan, Ş. (2022). Madde tepki kuramında eşitleme hatalarının belirlenmesinde kullanılan delta ve bootstrap yöntemlerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 1053-1081. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.913241
36. Sezer Başaran, E. (2023) Farkli ortak deği̇şkenlerle test eşi̇tlemeni̇n ortak maddeli̇ test eşi̇tlemeyle karşilaştirilmasi. [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
37. Sezer Başaran, E., Mutluer, C. & Çakan, M. (2023). A Comparison of Covariates, Equating Designs, and Methods in Equating TIMSS 2019 Science Tests. Participatory Educational Research, 10(5), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.74.10.5
38. Skaggs, G., & Lissitz, R. W. (1986). IRT test equating: Relevant issues and a review of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 495-529.
39. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied psychological measurement, 7(2), 201-210.
40. Swaminathan, H., & Gifford, J. A. (1982). Bayesian estimation in the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 175-191.
41. Yıldırım Seheryeli, M., Yahsi SARI, H. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2021). Comparison of Kernel Equating and Kernel Local Equating in Item Response Theory Observed Score Equating. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 12(4), 348-357. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.900843
42. Yıldırım, Y., Gündüz, T., & İnce Aracı, F. G. (2021, Eylül). Madde tepki kuramına dayalı test eşitlemede ortak madde oranının ve madde ayırt ediciliğinin eşitleme hatasına etkisi. 7. Uluslararası Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
43. Tanberkan Suna, H., Tan, Ş. (2017). The Investigation of the Group Invariance Property on Diverse Equating Methods. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 316-327.
44. Tan, Ş. (2015). Küçük örneklemlerde beta4 ve polynomial loglineer öndüzgünleştirme ve kübik eğri sondüzgünleştirme metotlarının uygunluğu. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 123-151.
45. Von Davier, A. A., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (2004). The kernel method of test equating. Springer.
46. von Davier, A. A., & Kong, N. (2005). A unified approach to linear equating for the nonequivalent groups design. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(3), 313-342. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003313
47. Wiberg, M., & Bränberg, K. (2015). Kernel equating under the non-equivalent groups with covariates design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(5), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662161456793
48. Wolfe, E. W. (2000). Equating and item banking with the Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(4), 409-434.
49. Yurtçu, M., & Güzeller, C. O. (2018). Investigation of equating error in tests with differential item functioning. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.316420