Matematik Kaygısı Ölçeği-Kısa Formu’nun Türkçe Uyarlaması: Çok Boyutlu Rasch Modeline Dayalı Bir Psikometrik Değerlendirme

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Núñez-Peña ve Guilera (2023) tarafından geliştirilen Kısa Matematik Kaygısı Ölçeği’ni (Brief Math Anxiety Scale [BMAS]) Türkçeye uyarlamak ve Matematik Kaygısı Ölçeği-Kısa Formu’nun (MKÖ-KF) öğretmen adaylarındaki psikometrik özelliklerini çok boyutlu Rasch modeli çerçevesinde değerlendirmektir. Uyarlama süreci ileri çeviri, geri çeviri, uzman incelemesi, bilişsel görüşme ve pilot uygulama aşamalarını kapsamıştır. Kesitsel tarama deseninde yürütülen araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, üç devlet üniversitesinin sınıf öğretmenliği ve ilköğretim matematik öğretmenliği programlarında öğrenim gören 431 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. Yapı geçerliği polikorik korelasyonlara dayalı doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle sınanmış, üç faktörlü model veriye iyi uyum sağlarken tek ve iki faktörlü alternatif modeller yetersiz kalmıştır. Alt boyutların Cronbach alfa ve McDonald omega katsayıları iyi düzeyde güvenirliğe işaret etmiştir. Çok boyutlu Kısmi Puan Modeli, tek boyutlu modele göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve güçlü biçimde daha iyi uyum sağlamıştır. Boyutlar arası gizil korelasyonlar orta ile yüksek düzeyde değişmiş, Sayısal Görev Kaygısı ile Ders Kaygısı boyutları ampirik olarak birbirine yakın bulunmuştur. Bu iki boyutta taban etkisi gözlenmiş, Ders Kaygısı boyutunda birey ayrıştırma güvenirliği kabul edilebilir eşiğin altında kalmıştır. Değişen madde fonksiyonu analizinde yalnızca bir madde bölüm değişkenine göre sınır düzeyde farklılaşmıştır. Bulgular, MKÖ-KF puanlarının alt boyut düzeyinde yorumlanmasını desteklemekte, ancak ölçme hassasiyetinin düşük kaygı düzeylerinde azaldığını göstermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Matematik kaygısı
• ölçek uyarlama
• çok boyutlu Rasch modeli
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik.

Turkish Adaptation of the Mathematics Anxiety Scale-Short Form: A Psychometric Assessment Based on the Multidimensional Rasch Model

Öz

This study aimed to adapt the Brief Math Anxiety Scale (BMAS), developed by Núñez-Peña and Guilera (2023), into Turkish and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the resulting Mathematics Anxiety Scale–Short Form (MKÖ-KF) among preservice teachers within a multidimensional Rasch framework. The adaptation process included forward translation, back-translation, expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing. The study employed a cross-sectional survey design and included 431 preservice teachers enrolled in primary school teacher education and elementary mathematics teacher education programs at three public universities. Construct validity was examined through confirmatory factor analysis based on polychoric correlations. The three-factor model showed good fit to the data, whereas the one- and two-factor alternatives provided inadequate fit. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients indicated good reliability across the subscales. The multidimensional Partial Credit Model fitted the data significantly and substantially better than the unidimensional model. Latent correlations among the dimensions ranged from moderate to high, with Numerical Task Anxiety and Course Anxiety showing substantial empirical overlap. Floor effects were observed in these two dimensions, and person separation reliability for Course Anxiety fell below the acceptable threshold. Differential item functioning analysis indicated borderline program-related functioning for only one item. Overall, the findings support interpreting MKÖ-KF scores at the subscale level, while also indicating reduced measurement precision at lower levels of mathematics anxiety.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mathematics anxiety
• scale adaptation
• multidimensional Rasch model
• validity
• reliability.

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R. J. (2005). Reliability as a measurement design effect. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(2-3), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.008
2. Adams, R. J., Wilson, M., ve Wang, W. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621697211001
3. Aksu Dünya, B. (2025). Rasch modeli. N. Güler, B. Atar ve K. Atalay-Kabasakal (Ed.), R ile psikometri içinde. Pegem Akademi.
4. Alexander, L., ve Martray, C. R. (1989). The development of an abbreviated version of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22(3), 143- 150. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.1989.12022923
5. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA) ve National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
6. Andersen, E. B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 38(1), 123-140. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02291180
7. Ashcraft, M. H., ve Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096- 3445.130.2.224
8. Ashcraft, M. H., ve Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194059

9. Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., ve Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(5), 1860-1863. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910967107
10. Benjamini, Y., ve Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57(1), 289-300. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
11. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., ve Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer.
12. Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111-150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05
13. Caviola, S., Toffalini, E., Giofrè, D., Mercader Ruiz, J., Szűcs, D., ve Mammarella, I. C. (2022). Math performance and academic anxiety forms, from sociodemographic to cognitive aspects: A meta-analysis on 906,311 participants. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 363-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10648-021-09618-5
14. Cronbach, L. J., Schönemann, P., ve McKie, D. (1965). Alpha coefficients for stratified-parallel tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(2), 291-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446502500201
15. Curran, P. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006
16. Daker, R. J., Gattas, S., Sokolowski, H. M., Green, A. E., ve Lyons, I. M. (2021). First-year students’ math anxiety predicts STEM avoidance and underperformance throughout university, independently of math ability. npj Science of Learning, 6, 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00095-7
17. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
18. DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Oxford University Press.
19. Elhan, A. H., ve Atakurt, Y. (2005). Ölçeklerin değerlendirilmesinde niçin Rasch analizi kullanılmalıdır? Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, 58, 47-50.
20. Erol, E. (1982). Prevalence and correlates of math anxiety in Turkish high school students [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
21. Eysenck, M. W., ve Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6(6), 409-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208409696
22. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., ve Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336-353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
23. Finell, J., Sammallahti, E., Korhonen, J., Eklöf, H., ve Jonsson, B. (2022). Working memory and its mediating role on the relationship of math anxiety and math performance: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 798090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.798090
24. Flora, D. B. (2020). Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 484-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951747
25. Foley, A. E., Herts, J. B., Borgonovi, F., Guerriero, S., Levine, S. C., ve Beilock, S. L. (2017). The math anxiety-achievement paradox: A possible explanation from a global perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 403-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000142
26. Gravetter, F. J., ve Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4. baskı). Cengage Learning.
27. Güngör, D. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme araçlarının geliştirilmesi ve uyarlanması kılavuzu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 19(38), 104-112.
28. Hadley, K. M., ve Dorward, J. (2011). Investigating the relationship between elementary teacher mathematics anxiety, mathematics instructional practices, and student mathematics achievement. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5(2), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.2011.v5n2p27-44
29. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., ve Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Hambleton, R. K., ve Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-30.
31. Hergesell, A. (2022). Using Rasch analysis for scale development and refinement in tourism: Theory and illustration. Journal of Business Research, 142, 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.063
32. Hu, L., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi. org/10.1080/10705519909540118
33. Iliescu, D., Bartram, D., Zeinoun, P., Ziegler, M., Elosua, P., Sireci, S., ve Camara, W. (2024). The Test Adaptation Reporting Standards (TARES): Reporting test adaptations. International Journal of Testing, 24(1), 80-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2023.2242472
34. International Test Commission. (2018). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2. baskı). https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
35. Jodoin, M. G., ve Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(4), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1404_2
36. Kalaycıoğlu, D. B. (2015). The influence of socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and anxiety on mathematics achievement in England, Greece, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the USA. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(5), 1391-1401. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.5.2731
37. Kaya Uyanık, G., Güler, N., Taşdelen Teker, G., ve Demir, S. (2017). Türkiye’de eğitim alanında yayımlanan ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarının uygunluğunun çok yüzeyli Rasch modeli ile incelenmesi. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 8(2), 183-199. https://doi.org/10.21031/ epod.291367
38. Kelley, K., ve Pornprasertmanit, S. (2016). Confidence intervals for population reliability coefficients: Evaluation of methods, recommendations, and software for composite measures. Psychological Methods, 21(1), 69-92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040086
39. Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. in Y. Petscher ve C. Schatschneider (Ed.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (s. 171-207). Routledge.
40. Kolenikov, S., ve Bollen, K. A. (2012). Testing negative error variances: Is a Heywood case a symptom of misspecification? Sociological Methods & Research, 41(1), 124-167. https://doi. org/10.1177/0049124112442138
41. Koyuncu, M. S., ve Şata, M. (2024). New approaches in the assessment of pre-service teachers’ scientific research skills: Multidimensional many-facet Rasch model application. İçtimaiyat, 1-16. https://doi. org/10.33709/ictimaiyat.1536427
42. Lau, N., Hawes, Z. C. K., Tremblay, P. F., ve Ansari, D. (2022). Disentangling the individual and contextual effects of math anxiety: A global perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(8), e2115855119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115855119
43. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
44. Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936-949. https://doi. org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
45. Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 328.
46. Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
47. Linacre, J. M. (2024). A user’s guide to Winsteps Rasch-model computer programs. Winsteps.com.
48. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149-174. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02296272
49. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412- 433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
51. Meade, A. W., ve Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
52. Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge.
53. Núñez-Peña, M. I., ve Guilera, G. (2023). Development and validation of the Brief Math Anxiety Scale (BMAS) in university students. Psicothema, 35(4), 406-413. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2022.434
54. Nunnally, J. C., ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3. baskı). McGraw-Hill.
55. R Core Team. (2026). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
56. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063
57. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute for Educational Research.
58. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
59. Reise, S. P. (2012). The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
60. Richardson, F. C., ve Suinn, R. M. (1972). The Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale: Psychometric data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(6), 551-554. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033456
61. Robitzsch, A., Kiefer, T., ve Wu, M. (2024). TAM: Test analysis modules (R paketi sürüm 4.x). https:// CRAN.R-project.org/package=TAM
62. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
63. RStudio Team. (2026). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Posit Software, PBC. https:// posit.co/
64. Rusch, T., Lowry, P. B., Mair, P., ve Treiblmaier, H. (2017). Breaking free from the limitations of classical test theory: Developing and measuring information systems scales using item response theory. Information & Management, 54(2), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.06.005
65. Saatçioğlu, Ö. (2025). Matematik kaygısı ölçeği kısa formunun Türkçe versiyonu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Uluslararası Toplumsal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 309-336.
66. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(4, Pt. 2).
67. Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
68. Smith, E. V., Jr., Conrad, K. M., Chang, K., ve Piazza, J. (2002). An introduction to Rasch measurement for scale development and person assessment. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10(3), 189-206. https:// doi.org/10.1891/jnum.10.3.189.52562
69. Sousa, V. D., ve Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
70. Wang, W., Wilson, M., ve Adams, R. J. (1997). Rasch models for multidimensionality between and within items. M. Wilson, G. Engelhard ve K. Draney (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Cilt 4, s. 139-155). Ablex.
71. Wright, B. D., ve Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
72. Wright, B. D., ve Mok, M. M. C. (2004). An overview of the family of Rasch measurement models. in E. V. Smith Jr. ve R. M. Smith (Ed.), Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications (s. 1-24). JAM Press.
73. Wright, B. D., ve Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. MESA Press.
74. Yalçın, S. (2018). Ölçek geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci bilgi notu. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi.
75. Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, 1-6.
76. Zhang, J., Zhao, N., ve Kong, Q. P. (2019). The relationship between math anxiety and math performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1613. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01613
77. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF). Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.