PPSE P121 and P10 calculation method and related issues

Year 2021, , 744 - 763, 04.12.2021

Ümit Çelen

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.875011

Abstract

This study examined the calculation methods of P121 and P10 scores used in teacher appointments. The statistics regarding the Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) subtests used by Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (MSPC) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were accessed from the website of the institution. The parameters not published on this webpage were calculated by using the candidates’ results. The public openly debates the allegations made by the candidates who took the exam in 2019 that their scores had been miscalculated for various reasons and the examinee scores, in fact, had to be higher. The study was conducted (i) to determine whether such disparity actually existed, (ii) and if so, the reason behind it, (iii) how the differences arising from the parameters in the formula being used to calculate the scores would affect exam takers’ scores. In particular, the study identified the issues caused by converting the scores obtained by using different subtests in the same manner in calculating P121without considering an equating method. Based on the examined exam scores for the last three-years, it was concluded that 2019 candidates were disadvantaged in most teaching fields. Based on the findings, it is suggested that (i) the use weighted standard scores instead of P121 and P110, to calculate separate scores for each teaching field is better and (ii) the validity period of such exam scores should be limited to one year.

Keywords

Score calculation, PPSE P10, PPSE P121, Teacher appointments

References

• Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publisher.
• Çelen, Ü. (2013). KPSS P10 Hesaplama yöntemine ilişkin sorunlar [Calculation method problems of PPSE P10]. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 46 (1), 127-142. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/508720
• Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Erlbaum Publishers.
• Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory principles and applications. Kluwer.
• Kan, A. (2010). Test eşitleme: aynı davranışları ölçen, farklı madde formlarına sahip testlerin istatistiksel eşitliğinin sınanması [Test equation: testing statistical equality of tests measuring same behaviors and having different item forms]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 1(1), 16 21. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/65994
• Ministry of National Education. (2020). https://personel.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_03/19115547_taban_puan_yeni.pdf
• Measurment, Selection and Placement Center. (1999). İlk Defa Devlet Memuru Olarak Atanacaklar İçin Seçme Sınavı (DMS) Kılavuzu [Selection Examination Guide for First Time Civil Servants], MSPC. https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,3564/dms-kilavuzu.html
• Measurment, Selection and Placement Center (2019). Kamu Personeli Seçme Sınavı (KPSS) Kılavuzu A Grubu ve Öğretmenlik [Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) Guide Group A and Teaching]: MSPC. https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2019/KPSS/kilavuz22072019.pdf
• Tekin, H. (1996). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (9. Baskı) [Measurement and Evaluation in Education], Yargı Yayınları.
• Turgut, M.F., & Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme [Measurement and Evaluation in Education], Pegem Akademi.