A Bibliometric Analysis of Articles on High-Stakes Testing Between 2000 and 2024

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 59 Sayı: 1 , 425 - 473 , 15.04.2026

Gönül Yazar , Vural Tünkler

https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.1724404

https://izlik.org/JA49YM82KE

Öz

This study aims to examine articles on high-stakes testing using a bibliometric analysis method. High-stakes testing represents a critical tool through which schools and educators are evaluated based on student performance, thereby shaping educational policies. Within the scope of this research, 1,947 articles published between 2000 and 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) database using the "Topic" field with the keywords "education AND high stakes testing OR accountability" and subsequently analyzed. The analysis employed the VOSviewer software. Findings indicate a notable increase in publications in this field, particularly after 2010. Among collaborating organizations, Stanford University emerged as prominent, underscoring the United States' leadership in the domain. Co-citation analysis identified the American Educational Research Journal as the most influential journal. Furthermore, "accountability" was the most frequently used keyword. The trends revealed in the study highlight the role of high-stakes testing within educational systems, the increase in the number of studies over the years, and its multidimensional nature. The results demonstrate how high-stakes testing shape education and indicate that more research could be conducted in this area in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

High-stakes testing , assessment systems , education policy , standardized testing , bibliometric analysis

2000-2024 Arası Yüksek Riskli Testlerle İlgili Makalelerin Bibliyometrik Analizi

https://izlik.org/JA49YM82KE

Öz

Bu çalışmada, yüksek riskli testlerle ilgili yapılan makalelerin bibliyometrik analiz yöntemiyle incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yüksek riskli testler, öğrenci performansı üzerinden okul ve eğitimcilerin değerlendirildiği ve eğitim politikalarının şekillendiği önemli bir araçtır. Çalışma kapsamında, Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) veri tabanından “Topic” etiketi ile “education AND high stakes testing OR accountability” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak 2000-2024 yılları arasında konuyla ilgili yapılan 1947 makale analiz edilmiştir. Analizde VOSviewer programı kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda özellikle 2010'dan sonra bu alandaki yayınlarda artış gözlenmiştir. En çok iş birliği yapılan kurumlar arasında Stanford Üniversitesi öne çıkarken, ABD’nin bu alandaki liderliği vurgulanmıştır. Ortak atıf analizinde, American Educational Research Journal en etkili dergi olarak belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, anahtar kelimeler arasında “accountability” en çok kullanılan kavram olmuştur. Araştırmada ortaya çıkan eğilimler, yüksek riskli testlerin eğitim sistemleri içindeki yerini, yıllar içinde çalışma sayısında yaşanan artışı ve çok boyutlu yapısını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuçlar, yüksek riskli testlerin eğitimi nasıl şekillendirdiğini ve gelecekte bu alanda daha fazla araştırma yapılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yüksek riskli testler , değerlendirme sistemleri , eğitim politikaları , standart testler , bibliyometrik analiz

Etik Beyan

Çalışma, ULAKBİM TR Dizin tarafından açıklanan kriterlere göre Etik Kurul Onayı gerektirmemektedir.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu makalede herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluştan destek alınmamıştır.

Kaynakça

• Arviv Elyashiv, R., & Avidov-Ungar, O. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions of national large-scale assessment: the pedagogical dimension. Educational Review, 76(6), 1691–1707. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2256996
• Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
• Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
• Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815614916
• Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
• Bae, S. (2018). Redesigning systems of school accountability: A multiple measures approach to accountability and support. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(8). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2920
• Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231
• Burdett, N. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ugly–testing as a part of the education ecosystem (RISE-WP-16/010). Working paper series, research on improving systems of education (RISE).
• Burgess, S., Metcalfe, R., & Sadoff, S. (2021). Understanding the response to financial and non-financial incentives in education: Field experimental evidence using high-stakes assessments. Economics of Education Review, 85, 102195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102195
• Camphuijsen, M. K., Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2021). Test-based accountability in the Norwegian context: Exploring drivers, expectations and strategies. Journal of Education Policy, 36(5), 624–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1739337
• Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 24(4), 305-331. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024004305
• Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fpam.20586
• Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00375.x
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Forty-five years of Journal of Business Research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.039
• 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
• Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics, 105, 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
• Elo, J., & Nygren-Landgärds, C. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of autonomy in the tensions between a subject focus and a cross-curricular school profile: A case study of a Finnish upper secondary school. Journal of Educational Change, 22(3), 423-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09412-0
• Erdağ, C. (2019). Bir hesap verebilirlik teknolojisi olarak merkezi sınavlar: Finlandiya, Estonya ve Yeni Zelanda örnekleri. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 14(20), 1528-1563. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.592335
• Erduran, S., El Masri, Y., Cullinane, A., & Ng, Y. (2020). Assessment of practical science in high stakes examinations: A qualitative analysis of high performing English-speaking countries. International Journal of Science Education, 42(9), 1544–1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1769876
• Escamilla, K., Chávez, L., & Vigil, P. (2005). Rethinking the “gap” high-stakes testing and Spanish-speaking students in Colorado. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487104273791
• Falabella, A. (2021). The seduction of hyper-surveillance: Standards, testing, and accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(1), 113-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20912299
• Fidjeland, A. (2023). Using high-stakes grades to incentivize learning. Economics of Education Review, 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102377
• Finn, C. E. (2022). School accountability: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Phi Delta Kappan, 104(3), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221136588
• Fischer, C., Fishman, B., Levy, A. J., Eisenkraft, A., Dede, C., Lawrenz, F., Jia, Y., Kook, J. F., Frumin, K., & McCoy, A. (2020). When do students in Low-SES schools perform better-than-expected on a high-stakes test? Analyzing school, teacher, teaching, and professional development characteristics. Urban Education, 55(8-9), 1280-1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916668953
• Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473418
• Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4201_2
• Gorgodze, S., & Chakhaia, L. (2021). The uses and misuses of centralised high stakes examinations-Assessment Policy and Practice in Georgia. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1900775
• Gulek, C. (2003). Preparing for high-stakes testing. Theory into practice, 42(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4201_6
• Hammack, R., & Wilson, E. (2019). The dangers of high stakes testing in social studies. Journal of Social Studies and History Education, 2-26. Retrieved from https://www.uhd.edu/documents/academics/public-service/urban-education/jsshe/archives/2019/the-dangers-high-stakes-rhammack2.pdf
• Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2004). The effect of school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2-3), 406-415. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article-abstract/2/2-3/406/2194942
• Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20091
• Hargreaves, A. (2020). Large-scale assessments and their effects: The case of mid-stakes tests in Ontario. Journal of Educational Change, 21(3), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09380-5
• Hatfield, J. L., & Soløst, T. E. T. (2025). Assessing the assessment: Exploring Norwegian primary education teachers’ perceptions of national accountability testing. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 69(2), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2024.2308883
• Heilig, J. V., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-Style: The Progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689
• Hilton, A. L., & Saunders, R. (2024). LANTITE’s impact on teacher diversity: Unintended consequences of testing pre-service teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(4), 1063-1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00628-6
• Hofflinger, A., & von Hippel, P. T. (2020). Missing children: How Chilean schools evaded accountability by having low-performing students miss high-stakes tests. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(2), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09318-8
• Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high‐stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500240767
• Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5-6), 761-796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004
• Jacobs, M., van der Velden, R., & van Vugt, L. (2024). High-stakes testing and educational careers: Exploiting the differences in cutoffs between test recommendations in the Netherlands. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 17(4), 711–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2242342
• Jerrim, J. (2023). Test anxiety: Is it associated with performance in high-stakes examinations?. Oxford Review of Education, 49(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2079616
• Karakus, M., Ersozlu, A., & Clark, A. C. (2019). Augmented reality research in education: A bibliometric study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103904
• Kavanagh, K. M., & Fisher-Ari, T. R. (2020). Curricular and pedagogical oppression: Contradictions within the juggernaut accountability trap. Educational Policy, 34(2), 283-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818755471
• Kenney, A. W., Dulong Langley, S., Hemmler, V., Callahan, C. M., Gubbins, E. J., & Siegle, D. (2024). Different or differentiated? Recoupling Policy and practice in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 38(1), 134-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048231153612
• Kirby, S. N., & Stecher, B. M. (2004). Accountability in education. In B.M. Stecher, & S. N. Kirby (Eds.), Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1-10). Rand Corporation.
• Klinger, D. A., & Rogers, W. T. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of large-scale assessment programs within low-stakes accountability frameworks. International Journal of Testing, 11(2), 122–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2011.552748
• Knoester, M., & Meshulam, A. (2022). Beyond deficit assessment in bilingual primary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(3), 1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1742652
• Levatino, A., Parcerisa, L., & Verger, A. (2024). Understanding the stakes: The influence of accountability policy options on teachers’ responses. Educational Policy, 38(1), 31-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221142048
• McCoy, S., & Byrne, D. (2024). Shadow education uptake in Ireland: Inequalities and wellbeing in a high-stakes context. British Journal of Educational Studies, 72(6), 693–719 https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2024.2331476
• McElroy, K. (2023). Does test-based accountability improve more than just test scores?. Economics of Education Review, 94, 102381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102381
• McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
• Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J. B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004
• Merigó, J. M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R., & de la Sotta, C. (2018). Fifty years of Information Sciences: A bibliometric overview. Information Sciences, 432, 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.11.054
• Mintz, J. A., & Kelly, A. M. (2021). Science teacher motivation and evaluation policy in a high-stakes testing state. Educational Policy, 35(1), 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818810520
• Moore, D. P. (2025). Culturally sustaining catch-up? How English language arts teachers “compensate” with culturally sustaining pedagogy after the state exam. Urban Education, 60(7), 2016-2050. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859241266605
• Munoz-Chereau, B., González, Á., & Meyers, C. V. (2022). How are the ‘losers’ of the school accountability system constructed in Chile, the USA and England? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(7), 1125–1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1851593
• Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.2010.12318
• Ober, T. M., Hong, M. R., Carter, M. F., Brodersen, A. S., Rebouças-Ju, D., Liu, C., & Cheng, Y. (2022). Are high school students accurate in predicting their AP exam scores?: Examining inaccuracy and overconfidence of students’ predictions. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2037508
• Orfield, G., & Wald, J. (2000). Testing, testing: The high-stakes testing mania hurts poor and minority students the most. The Nation, 270(22), 38–40. Retrieved from https://thenation.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/testingtesting2000.pdf
• Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: from regulation to self‐evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930902733121
• Özaslan, A. & Beyhan, Ö. (2023). Students’ understandings related to their upcoming high-stakes tests: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 5(2), 789-803. https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1288890
• Pace, J. L. (2011). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(1), 32-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2011.10473446
• Parkison, P. (2009). Political economy and the NCLB regime: Accountability, standards, and high-stakes testing. The Educational Forum, 73(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720802539606
• Passas, I. (2024). Bibliometric analysis: the main steps. Encyclopedia, 4(2), 1014-1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4020065
• Rhoten, D., Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Chabran, M. (2003). The conditions and characteristics of as- sessment and accountability: The case of four states. In M. Carnoy, R. Elmore, & L. S. Siskin (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 13-53). Routledge.
• Sloane, F. C., & Kelly, A. E. (2003). Issues in high-stakes testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4201_3
• Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
• Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9105-2
• Tan, S. H. (2010). Singapore’s educational reforms: The case for un-standardizing curriculum and reducing testing. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 6(4), 50-58.
• Thomas, R. M. (2005). High-stakes testing: Coping with collateral damage. Routledge.
• Thompson, G. (2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 62–84. Retrieved from https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/IEJ/article/view/7456
• Thompson, G., & Lašič, T. (2011). Doing something about it: Representations of NAPLAN in the public domain [Paper presentation]. AARE Annual Conference, Hobart, TAS, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2011/aarefinal00577.pdf
• Trujillo, T., Møller, J., Jensen, R., Kissell, R. E., & Larsen, E. (2021). Images of educational leadership: How principals make sense of democracy and social justice in two distinct policy contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(4), 536-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20981148
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2023, Ekim 31). VOSviewer manual (Sürüm 1.6.20). Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University. https://www.vosviewer.com
• Verger, A., Parcerisa, L., & Fontdevila, C. (2019). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms. Educational Review, 71(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1522045
• Von der Embse, N. P., & Witmer, S. E. (2014). High-stakes accountability: Student anxiety and large-scale testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 30(2), 132–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2014.888529
• Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 97(5), 261-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_139.x
• Wang, J., Li, Q., & Luo, Y. (2022). Physics identity of Chinese students before and after Gaokao: The effect of high-stake testing. Research in Science Education, 52(2), 675-689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09978-y
• Xie, Q. (2022). The role of parents in the school accountability system: Insights from a Hong Kong case. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101114
• Yin, Y. M., & Mu, G. M. (2022). Examination-oriented or quality-oriented? A question for fellows of an alternative teacher preparation program in China. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(4), 727-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00462-8
• Yung, K. W. H. (2021). Shadow education as a form of oppression: conceptualizing experiences and reflections of secondary students in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1727855
• Zakharov, A., & Carnoy, M. (2021). Does teaching to the test improve student learning?. International Journal of Educational Development, 84, 102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102422