Beş-Altı Yaş Sağlık Okuryazarlığı Test Bataryası Ham Puanlarının Yaş Gruplarına Göre Standardizasyonu ve Performans Düzeylerinin Tanımı

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3, 520 - 534, 31.12.2025

Hasan Uğur Serdaroğlu , Hatice Bekır , Adnan Kan

https://doi.org/10.59244/ktokusbd.1838753

Öz

Amaç: Beş-altı yaş sağlık okuryazarlığı test bataryası ve batarya içinde yer alan gıda ve beslenme okuryazarlığı testi, ağız sağlığı okuryazarlığı testi, ruh sağlığı okuryazarlığı testi, uyku sağlığı okuryazarlığı testi, fiziksel sağlık okuryazarlığı testi, çevre sağlığı okuryazarlığı testi, anatomi okuryazarlığı testi, risk ve güvenlik okuryazarlığı testi, ilk yardım okuryazarlığı testi ve öz bakım okuryazarlığı testi ham puanlarını standart puanlara dönüştürmek ve kesme aralıklarını belirleyerek performans düzeylerini tanımlamak amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Ham puanların merkezi eğilim ve yayılım ölçülerini belirlemek amacıyla ortalama, medyan, en küçük değer, en yüksek değer, varyans, standart sapma, yüzdelik 10, 25, 50, 75 ve 90; dağılımını değerlendirmek için çarpıklık ve basıklık katsayı değerleri hesaplanmıştır. Ham puanlar önce Z puana, ardından kolay yorumlanması amacıyla T puana dönüştürülmüştür. T puanının betimsel istatistikleri hesaplanmış, kesme noktası ve aralıkları belirlenerek performans düzeyleri tanımlanmıştır.
Bulgular: Beş-altı yaş sağlık okuryazarlığı test bataryası ham puanlarının normal dağılım gösterdiği saptanmıştır. Kesme aralıkları T puanı temel alındığında 0≤T puanı<35 aralığı “Çok zayıf”, 35≤T puanı<45 aralığı “Zayıf”, 45≤T puanı≤55 aralığı “Ortalama”, 55 Sonuç: Beş-altı yaş çocukların batarya ve içindeki testlerden aldıkları puanlara göre performansları çok zayıf, zayıf, ortalama, iyi ve çok iyi olarak yorumlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

çocuk gelişimi , okul öncesi , sağlık okuryazarlığı , standardizasyon , test bataryası

Etik Beyan

Etik Kurul Onayı Gerekmemektedir.

Destekleyen Kurum

Herhangi bir kurumdan finansal destek veya fon sağlanmamıştır.

Teşekkür

Çalışmaya değerli görüş ve önerileriyle katkıda bulunan sayın hakemlere teşekkür ederiz.

Standardization of Raw Scores and Definition of Performance Levels for the Five-Six Year Old Health Literacy Test Battery by Age Group

Öz

Objective: The aim is to convert raw scores to standard scores for the five-to-six-year-old health literacy test battery and the tests included in the battery: food and nutrition literacy test, oral health literacy test, mental health literacy test, sleep health literacy test, physical health literacy test, environmental health literacy test, anatomy literacy test, risk and safety literacy test, first aid literacy test, and self-care literacy test, and to define performance levels by determining cut-off intervals.
Materials and Methods: To determine the measures of central tendency and dispersion of raw scores, the mean, median, minimum value, maximum value, variance, standard deviation, and percentiles 10, 25, 50, 75, and 90 were calculated; skewness and kurtosis coefficient values were calculated to evaluate the distribution. Raw scores were first converted to Z scores, then to T scores for easier interpretation. Descriptive statistics of T scores were calculated, and performance levels were defined by determining the cut-off point and intervals.
Findings: The raw scores of the health literacy test battery are normally distributed. When T-score cutting intervals are considered, the range 0≤T score<35 is defined as "Very poor", 35≤T score<45 as "Poor", 45≤T score≤55 as "Average", 55 Conclusion: The performance of five to six-year-old children was interpreted as very poor, poor, average, good, and very good based on their scores from the battery and the tests within it.

Anahtar Kelimeler

child development , health literacy , preschool , test battery , standardization

Etik Beyan

Ethics Committee Approval is Not Required.

Destekleyen Kurum

No financial support or funding has been provided by the institution.

Teşekkür

We would like to thank the esteemed reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on this study.

Kaynakça

• AERA, APA, & NCME (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/standards_2014edition.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Berkman, N. D., Davis, T. C., & McCormack, L. (2010). Health literacy: What is it? Journal of Health Communication, 15(S2), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499985 Bridges, A. J., & Holler, K. A. (2007). How many is enough? Determining optimal sample sizes for normative studies in pediatric neuropsychology. Child Neuropsychology, 13(6), 528-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040701233875
• Council of Europe Committee of Experts on Sports Research. (1993). Eurofit: Handbook for the EUROFIT tests of physical fitness.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Araştırma tasarımı. Ankara: Nobel. Gary, S., Lenhard, A., Lenhard, W., & Herzberg, D. S. (2023). Reducing the bias of norm scores in non-representative samples: Weighting as an adjunct to continuous norming methods. Assessment, 30(8), 2491-2509. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231153832
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Gualtieri, C. T., & Johnson, L. G. (2006). Reliability and validity of a computerized neurocognitive test battery, CNS Vital Signs. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(7), 623-643.
• Hansberry, D. R., Agarwal, N., & Baker, S. R. (2015). Health literacy and online educational resources: An opportunity to educate patients. American Journal of Roentgenology, 204(1), 111-116. https://doi.org/ 10.2214/AJR.14.13086
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Karakaş, S. (2017). Prof. Dr. Sirel Karakaş psikoloji sözlüğü: Bilgisayar programı ve veritabanı. www.psikolojisozlugu.com sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Karakaş, S., Erdoğan Bakar, E., Doğutepe Dinçer, E. (2013). BİLNOT bataryası el kitabı: Nöropsikolojik testlerin yetişkinler için araştırma ve geliştirme çalışmaları. Konya: Eğitim.
• Katims, P.A., Bilder, R.M., & Enriquez, K.D. (2023). 1 Race, ethnicity, education, sex and gender effects on neuropsychological test scores: Limitations of current evidence and impact on clinical trials and clinical practice. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 29, 599-600. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617723007646
• Kern, R. S., Nuechterlein, K. H., Green, M. F., Baade, L. E., Fenton, W. S., Gold, J. M., ... Marder, S. R. (2008). The MATRICS consensus cognitive battery, part 2: Co-norming and standardization. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(2), 214-220.
• Kim, M., Winkler, C., & Talley, S. (2021). Binary item CFA of behavior problem index (BPI) using Mplus: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 17(2), 141-153.
• Kindig, D. A., Panzer, A. M., & Nielsen-Bohlman, L. (Eds.). (2004). Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington: National Academies Press.
• Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications. Koç Akran, S. (2021). Sağlık okuryazarlığı üzerine sistematik derleme. Uluslararası Beşeri Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 7(15), 143-168.
• Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2020). Improvement of norm score quality via regression-based continuous norming. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(2), 229-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420928457
• Lynd, R.S., & Lynd, H.M. (1929). Middletown A Study in Contemporary American Culture. Harcourt, Brace And Company. New York. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.156473/page/n5/mode/2up
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit ındexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
• MEB (2024). Milli eğitim istatistikleri örgün eğitim 2023/2024. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_03/19143714_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2023_2024.pdf
• Musick, K., Seltzer, J. A., & Schwartz, C. R. (2008). Neighborhood norms and substance use among teens. Social Science Research, 37(1), 138-155.
• Norfolk, P. A., Farmer, R. L., Floyd, R. G., Woods, I. L., Hawkins, H. K., & Irby, S. M. (2014). Norm block sample sizes: A review of 17 individually administered intelligence tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(6), 544-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914562385
• Piovesana, A., & Senior, G. (2016). How small is big: Sample size and skewness. Assessment, 25(6), 793-800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116669784
• Rudolph, J. E., Zhong, Y., Duggal, P., Mehta, S. H., & Lau, B. (2023). Defining representativeness of study samples in medical and population health research. BMJ Medicine, 2(1), e000399. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000399
• Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Witmer, S. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.13. Baskı .(13th ed.).
• Sathyanarayana, S., & Mohanasundaram, T. (2024). Fit indices in structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis: reporting guidelines. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 24(7), 561-577. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2024/v24i71430
• Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations.(5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Serdaroğlu, H. U. (2025). Beş-altı yaş çocuk ve ebeveynlerinin sağlık okuryazarlığı. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Smith, P. J., Need, A. C., Cirulli, E. T., Chiba-Falek, O., & Attix, D. K. (2013). A comparison of the Cambridge automated neuropsychological test battery (CANTAB) with “traditional” neuropsychological testing instruments. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35(3), 319-328.
• Tucci, A., Plante, E., Heilmann, J. J., & Miller, J. F. (2022). Dynamic norming for systematic analysis of language transcripts. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(1), 320-333. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2024/v24i71430
• TÜİK (2025). Sosyoekonomik Seviye, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Sosyoekonomik-Seviye-2023-57942
• Urban, J., Scherrer, V., Strobel, A., & Preckel, F. (2024). Continuous norming approaches: A systematic review and real data example. Assessment, 32(5), 654-674. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241260545
• Vermeent, S., Spaltman, M., Van Elswijk, G., Miller, J. B., & Schmand, B. (2022). Philips IntelliSpace cognition digital test battery: Equivalence and measurement invariance compared to traditional analog test versions. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 36(8), 2278-2299.
• Zhu, J., & Chen, H.Y. (2011). Utility of inferential norming with smaller sample sizes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(6), 570-580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910396323
• WHO (2024). Health literacy. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-literacy sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Wilkins, C., Rolfhus, E., Weiss, L., & Zhu, J. J. (2005). A new method for calibrating translated tests with small sample sizes. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
• Woods, S. P., Childers, M., Ellis, R. J., Guaman, S., Grant, I., Heaton, R. K., & HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center (HNRC) Group 1. (2006). A battery approach for measuring neuropsychological change. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(1), 83-89.