-

Öz

The purpose of the present study is to adapt Beliefs About Standardized Tests Scale (BASTS), which is developed by Magee and Jones (2012) to Turkish, and to assess its psychometrics properties. Research was conducted on three different study groups, who consisted of 361 teachers and 192 prospective teachers during 2013-2014 education year first semester. In Turkish adaptation process of BASTS, its language equivalence was assessed and strong, positive and significant correlations were obtained between Turkish and English versions. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed three factors for Turkish version of BASTS scale similar to its original version. Reliability of BASTS was calculated with composite reliability which is a method based on factor loadings and errors variance obtained from CFA. As a result of reliability analysis, it was found that the composite reliability coefficients were .66 and .77 for teachers and prospective teachers respectively. The findings of the item analyses showed that all of the items in the scale were discriminatory for both teachers and prospective teachers. Based on these results, it can be concluded that Turkish version of BASTS is a valid and reliable instrument in assessing teachers’ and prospective teachers’ beliefs about standardized tests

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Standardized tests, Beliefs about standardized tests scale, Validity, Reliability

STANDART TESTLERE YÖNELİK İNANÇ ÖLÇEĞİ'NİN (STYİÖ) TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Magee ve Jones (2012) tarafından geliştirilen Standart Testlere Yönelik İnanç Ölçeği’ni (STYİÖ) Türkçe’ye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Araştırma 2013-2014 Öğretim Yılı Güz Dönemi’nde 361 öğretmen ve 192 öğretmen adayı olmak üzere toplam 553 katılımcıdan oluşan üç ayrı çalışma grubu üzerinde yürütülmüştür. STYİÖ’nün Türkçe’ye uyarlanması sürecinde öncelikle ölçeğin dilsel eşdeğerliği incelenmiştir. Dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında ölçeğin Türkçe ile İngilizce formundan elde edilen puanlar arasında pozitif yönde, güçlü ve anlamlı korelasyonlar saptanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) sonucunda, STYİÖ’nün Türkçe formunun orijinal forma paralel üç faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. STYİÖ’nün güvenirliği; DFA’dan elde edilen faktör yükleri ve hata varyansı değerlerine dayalı olarak hesaplanan bir güvenirlik katsayısı olan bileşik güvenirlik yöntemi ile hesaplanmıştır. Güvenirlik analizi sonucunda, öğretmenlerden toplanan veriler üzerinden hesaplanan güvenirlik katsayısı .66 ve öğretmen adaylarından toplanan veriler üzerinden elde edilen güvenirlik katsayısı .77 olarak bulunmuştur. Madde analizinden elde edilen bulgular, ölçekte yer alan maddelerin tamamının hem öğretmenler hem öğretmen adayları için ayırt edici sonuçlar verdiğini göstermiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara dayanarak, STYİÖ’nün Türkçe formunun öğretmenlerin ve öğretmen adaylarının standart testler hakkındaki inançlarını belirlemede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Standart testler, Standart testlere yönelik inanç ölçeği, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El-Fattah, S.M., & Yates, G.C.R. (2006, November) Implicit theory of intelligence scale: Testing for factorial invariance and mean structure. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide, South Australia.
2. Airasian, P.W. (2005). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications. NY: McGraw Hill.
3. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. New York: Open University Press.
4. Aksu Ataç, B. (2012). Foreign language teachers' attitude toward authentic assessment in language teaching. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8 (2), 7-19.
5. Aypay, A. (2011). Epistemolojik inançlar ölçeğinin türkiye uyarlaması ve öğretmen adaylarının epistemolojik inançlarının incelenmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 1-15.
6. Başol Göçmen, G. (2004, Temmuz). Otantik Değerlendirme Nedir ve Nasıl Yapılır? XIII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı'nda sunulmuş sözlü bildiri. Malatya: İnönü Üniversitesi.
7. Bay, E., İlhan, M., Aydın, Z., Kinay, İ., Özyurt, M., Kuzu, S. vd. (2013). Öğrenmeye yönelik inanç ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 1008-1030.
8. Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M.B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.

9. Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
10. Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
11. Brew, C., & Riley, P. (2011). Measuring student support for participative assessment and related strategies: Development and testing of the beliefs about participative assessment instrument (BAPAI). Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 32-52.
12. Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
13. Boud, D. (1992). The use of self-assessment schedules in negotiated learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 185-200.
14. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399- 413.
15. Briggs, S.R., & Cheek, J.M. (1986). The Role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148.
16. Brislin, R.W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R.M. (1973). Cross- Cultural Research Methods, New York, John Wiley - SonsPub.
17. Brown, G.T.L., & Hirschfeld, G.H.F. (2008). Students' conceptions of assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 3-17.
18. Brown, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model Fit. In: K. Bollen & J. Long, (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136-162). London: Sage Publications.
19. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
20. Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
21. Byrne, B., & Campbell, T.L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574.
22. Chan, K.W. (2001, December). Validation of a measure of personal theories about teaching and learning. Paper presented in the AARE 2001 Conference Held at Fremantle.
23. Cronbach, L.J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper and Row.
24. Deryakulu, D. (2006). Epistemological Beliefs, (Epistemolojik İnançlar). In Y. Kuzgun and D. Deryakulu, (Eds.), Individual Differences in Education (Eğitimde Bireysel Farklılıklar, (261-289). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
25. Deryakulu, D., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Epistemolojik inanç ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8, 1-15.
26. Deryakulu, D., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Epistemolojik inanç ölçeğinin faktör yapısının yeniden incelenmesi: Cinsiyet ve öğrenim görülen program türüne göre epistemolojik inançların karşılaştırılması. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18, 57-70.
27. Deryakulu, D., & Hazır Bıkmaz, F. (2003). Bilimsel epistemolojik inançlar ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 2(4), 243-257.
28. Dikli, S. (2003). Assessment at a distance: Traditional vs. alternative assessments. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 2(3), 1303-6521.
29. Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
30. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175-187.
31. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
32. Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychol Assess, 6(4), 304-312.
33. Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. Washington, DC: Center for Educator Compensation Reform. 02 Ocak 2014 tarihinde http://cecr.ed.gov/pdfs/Inter_Rater.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
34. Gronlund, N.E., & Linn, R.L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan.
35. Gullo, D.F. (2005). Understanding assessment and evaluation in early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.
36. Gültekin, S. (2012). Performansa Dayanıklı Değerlendirme. N. Çıkrıkçı Demirtaşlı, (Ed.), Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme içinde (s. 251-280). Ankara: Elhan Yayınları.
37. Higgins, S., & Moseley, D. (2001). Teachers' thinking about information and communications technology and learning: Beliefs and outcomes. Teacher Development, 5, 191-210.
38. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. NY: Sage Publications, Inc.
39. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
40. İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2013a). Matematik odaklı epistemolojik inanç ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Kuramsal Eğitim Bilim Dergisi, 6(3), 359-388.
41. İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2013b). Örtük zeka teorisi ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik çalışması. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 7(1), 191-221.
42. İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2013c). Mathematics oriented implicit theory of intelligence scale: Validity and reliability study. GESJ: Education Science and Psychology, 3(25), 116-134.
43. İlhan, M., Çetin, B., & Bars, M. (2013). Katılımcı değerlendirmeye yönelik inanç ölçeği'nin (KDYİÖ) Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Europan Education, 3(2), 17-35.
44. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User's guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
45. Karet, N., & Hubbell, E.R. (2003). Authentic assessment. 09 Ocak 2014 tarihinde http://www.elizrosshubbell.com/portfolio/authenticassessment.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
46. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
47. Koç, N. (1985). Standart Başarı Testlerinin, Bir Eğitim Sisteminde Verilen Çeşitli Kararlardaki Yeri ve Önemi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1-2). Ankara: 159-172.
48. Koretz, D.M. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Krows, A.J. (1999). Preservice teachers' belief systems and attitudes toward mathematics in the context of a progressive elementary teacher preparation program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertations. The University of Oklohama. Norman, Oklohoma.
50. Landis, J., & Knoch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
51. Luft, J.A., & Roehrig, G.H. (2007). Capturing science teachers' epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 38-63.
52. Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J.K. (2004). Instrument Translation Process: A Methods Review. Journal of Advanced Nursing Research, 48(2), 175-186.
53. Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers' beliefs and practices: Issues, İmplications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25-48.
54. Magee, R.G., & Jones, B.D. (2012). An instrument to assess beliefs about standardized testing: Measuring the influence of epistemology on the endorsement of standardized. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 12, 71-82.
55. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J. & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
56. Marstocn, D., Deno, S., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress (Res. Rep. No. 126). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED236198).
57. Meisels, S.J., Xue, Y., & Bickel, D.D., Nicholson, J., & Burnett, S.A. (2001). Parental reactions to authentic performance assessment. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 61-85.
58. Meydan, C.H. & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve AMOS uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
59. Meyers, L.S, Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. London: SAGE Publications.
60. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317–328.
61. Nichols, J.O.,& Nichols, K.W. (2005). A road map for improvement of student learning and support services through services through assessment. New York: Agathon.
62. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
63. Nunnaly, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
64. Olswang, L.B., & Bain, B.A. (1988). Assessment of language in developmentally disabled infants and preschoolers. In T.D. Wachs and R. Sheehan (Ed.). Assessment of young developmentally diasbled children. Perspectives in developmental psychology (pp.285-320). New York: Plenum Press.
65. Özgüven, İ.E. (2011). Psikolojik testler. Ankara: PDREM Yayınları.
66. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
67. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. Australia: Australian Copyright.
68. Paul, M., Owence, C., Chrispen, C., & Alexander, C.R. (2013). Peer assessment in higher education: The roadmap for developing employability skills in potential job seekers. International J. Educational & Research, 1(2), 62-69.
69. Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 235-246.
70. Putnam, J. (2005). Advantage test prep, grade 7: High-interest skill building for home and school. Huntington Beach: Creative Teaching Press.
71. Raines-Eudy, R. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(1), 124-141.
72. Richardson, V. (2003). Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs. In J. Raths & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
73. Rieskamp, J., & Reimer, T. (2007). Ecological rationality. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 273-275). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J.W., & Tondeur, J. (2009). Investigating Teachers' Educational Beliefs in Chinese Primary Schools: Socioeconomic and Geographical Perspectives. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 37(4), 363-377.
75. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
76. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.
77. Shipley, K., & McAfee, J. (2009). Assessment in speech-language pathology: A resource manual. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
78. Sikka, A., Nath, J.L., & Cohen, M.D. (2007). Practicing teachers beliefs and uses of assessment. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application. XIX(3), 239-253.
79. Silver, E.A., & Kenney, P.A. (1995): Sources of assessment information for instructional guidance in mathematics. En T.A. Romberg (Ed.), Reform in School Mathematics and Authentic Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
80. Stein-Rubin, C., & Fabus, R. (2012). A guide to clinical assessment and professional report writing in speech-language pathology. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar/Cengage Learning.
81. Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
82. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223-241.
83. Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
84. Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 341-356.
85. Yalaza Atay, D. (2003). Öğretmen eğitimin değişen yüzü. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
86. Yang, Y., & Green, S.B. (2011). Coefficient Alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4) 377-392.
87. Walvoord, B.E. (2010). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for ınstitutions, departments and general education. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
88. Weston, R., & Gore, P.A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.
89. Woolley, S.L., Benjamin, W. J.J., & Woolley, A.W. (2004). Construct validity of a self-report measure of teacher beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 319-331.