Yükseköğretimde Öğretmen Adayları İçin Matematik Öğretimi Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği'nin Türkçeye Uyumlaştırılması: Madde Tepki Kuramına Dayalı Aşamalı Tepki Modeli ile Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışma, Enochs ve ark. (2000) tarafından geliştirilen Matematik Öğretimi Öz-Yeterlik İnancı Envanteri’nin Kişisel Matematik Öğretimi Öz-Yeterliği alt ölçeğinden türetilen Matematik Öğretimi Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin (MÖYÖ) Türkçeye uyumlaştırılmasını sunmaktadır. Üç devlet üniversitesinden 434 öğretmen adayı (Kadın = 326, %75,1; Erkek = 108, %24,9) 2025-2026 akademik yılında çalışmaya katılmıştır. İleri-geri çeviri ve uzman paneli incelemesi uygulanmıştır. Psikometrik özellikler, tek boyutluluk, monotoniklik ve yerel bağımsızlık varsayım testlerinin ardından Madde Tepki Kuramı çerçevesinde Aşamalı Tepki Modeli (ATM) ile incelenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda 11 maddelik taslak formdan bir madde çıkarılmıştır. On maddelik form tek boyutlu yapıya kabul edilebilir ancak sınırda (borderline) uyum sağlamıştır (CFI = ,950; TLI = ,936; RMSEA = ,097; SRMR = ,087). Monotoniklik varsayımı büyük ölçüde karşılanmış; üç maddede küçük ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmayan ihlaller, bir maddede ise büyüklüğü sınırlı tek bir anlamlı ihlal gözlemlenmiştir. ATM parametreleri tüm maddeler için yeterli ayırt edicilik sergilemiştir. Güvenirlik analizleri Cronbach alfa = ,798, McDonald omega = ,805 ve ATM marjinal güvenirlik = ,884 değerlerini vermiştir. Ölçüm değişmezliği testleri yalnızca program karşılaştırmasında metrik değişmezliği desteklemiş, cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyi karşılaştırmalarında tam metrik değişmezlik sağlanmamıştır. Bununla birlikte, temel (configural) modellerin uyum değerleri görece düşük olduğundan değişmezlik bulguları ön nitelikli kabul edilmeli ve mevcut formla grup ortalamalarının karşılaştırılması önerilmemektedir. Bulgular, MÖYÖ’nün Türk öğretmen adaylarının matematik öğretimine yönelik öz-yeterliklerini değerlendirmede kabul edilebilir düzeyde iç yapı geçerliği ve güvenirliği bulunduğuna ilişkin başlangıç düzeyinde kanıt sunduğuna işaret etmektedir; ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlik ve test-tekrar test güvenirliği kanıtlarının sonraki çalışmalarla üretilmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• matematik öğretimi öz-yeterliği
• ölçek uyumlaştırma
• aşamalı tepki modeli
• madde tepki kuramı
• öğretmen adayları

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul izni Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Fakültesi Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu'nun 10 Aralık 2025 tarih ve 2025/33 sayılı kararı ile alınmıştır (Belge No: 12 Aralık 2025-419693).

Turkish Adaptation of the Mathematics Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale for Preservice Teachers in Higher Education: A Validity and Reliability Study via the Graded Response Model Based on Item Response Theory

Öz

This study presents the Turkish adaptation of the Mathematics Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (MTSE), derived from the Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy (PMTE) subscale of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (MTEBI; Enochs et al., 2000). A total of 434 preservice teachers (female = 326, 75.1%; male = 108, 24.9%) from three state universities participated during the 2025-2026 academic year. Forward–backward translation and expert panel review were employed. Psychometric properties were examined via the Graded Response Model (GRM) within the Item Response Theory (IRT) framework, following tests of the assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence. One item was removed from the 11-item draft form during these analyses. The 10-item form showed acceptable but borderline fit to a unidimensional structure (CFI = .950, TLI = .936, RMSEA = .097, SRMR = .087). The monotonicity assumption was largely satisfied: three items showed small, statistically non-significant violations, and one item showed a single significant violation of limited magnitude. GRM parameters demonstrated adequate discrimination across all items. Reliability analyses yielded Cronbach’s alpha = .798, McDonald’s omega = .805, and GRM marginal reliability = .884, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Measurement invariance tests supported metric invariance only across departments; full metric invariance was not supported across gender or year of study. Because the baseline (configural) models themselves fitted poorly, the invariance findings should be regarded as preliminary and group mean comparisons using the present form are not recommended. The Turkish MTSE provides initial evidence of acceptable internal-structure validity and reliability for assessing mathematics teaching self-efficacy among Turkish preservice teachers; evidence for criterion-related validity and test–retest reliability remains to be established.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• mathematics teaching self-efficacy
• scale adaptation
• graded response model
• item response theory
• preservice teachers

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Afyon Kocatepe University, with the decision dated 10 December 2025 and numbered 2025/33 (Document No: 12 December 2025-419693).

Kaynakça

1. AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2. Arıkan, R. (2004). Araştırma teknikleri ve rapor hazırlama. Asil Yayın.
3. Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Maryland.
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
6. Bates, A. B., Latham, N., & Kim, J.-A. (2011). Linking pre-service teachers’ mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics teaching efficacy to their mathematical performance. School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 325-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00095.x
7. Briley, J. S. (2012). The relationships among mathematics teaching efficacy, mathematics self-efficacy, and mathematical beliefs for elementary pre-service teachers. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 5, 1-13.
8. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2025). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (37. baskı). Ankara.
10. Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Parker, D., Kulm, G., & Raulerson, T. (2005). The mathematics content knowledge role in developing preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540509594555
11. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
12. Chen, W. H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265-289. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986022003265
13. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
14. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
15. Deniz, L., & Koç, T. (2020). Matematik öğretimi öz yeterlik inancı ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 7(1), 82-98. https://doi.org/10.33710/sduijes.639694
16. Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001
17. Ding, Y., Yang Hansen, K., & Klapp, A. (2023). Testing measurement invariance of mathematics self-concept and self-efficacy in PISA using MGCFA and the alignment method. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38, 709-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00623-y
18. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Enochs, L. G., Smith, P. L., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 194-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17256.x
19. Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30.
20. Gökkurt Özdemir, B., Mintemur, Ö., Kesemen, T., & Okuyucu, H. (2026). An analysis of engineering students’ perceptions of engineering and their attitudes toward the profession in terms of different variables. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1848998
21. Güngör, D. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme araçlarının geliştirilmesi ve uyarlanması kılavuzu. Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları. 19 (38), 104-112. https://psikolog.org.tr/tr/yayinlar/dergiler/1031828/tpy1301996120160000m000041.pdf
22. Hessen Bjerke, A., & Solomon, Y. (2020). Developing self-efficacy in teaching mathematics: Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the role of subject knowledge. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(5), 692-705. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595720
23. Hodge, V. J., & Austin, J. (2004). A survey of outlier detection methodologies. Artificial Intelligence Review, 22(2), 85-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-004-4304-y
24. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1224
25. Hu, L. T., & 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
26. Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice Hall. Kahle, D. K. B. (2008). How elementary school teachers’ mathematical self-efficacy and mathematics teaching self-efficacy relate to conceptually and procedurally oriented teaching practices [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
27. Kang, T., & Chen, T. T. (2008). Performance of the generalized S-X² item fit index for polytomous IRT models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(4), 391-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00071.x
28. Loevinger, J. (1954). The attenuation paradox in test theory. Psychological Bulletin, 51(5), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058543
29. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
30. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). American Council on Education/Macmillan.
32. Molenaar, I. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2000). MSP5 for Windows. IEC ProGAMMA.
33. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
34. Núñez-Peña, M. I., & 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
35. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216000241003
36. Posit Team. (2026). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 2026.04.0 Build 526) (Computer software). Posit, PBC. https://www.posit.co/
37. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
38. R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
39. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
40. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulama. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3 (6), 49-73. http://www.nebisumer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SumerN.2000.YEM_TPY.pdf
42. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
43. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202
44. Van der Ark, L. A. (2012). New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(5), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i05
45. Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409-428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
46. Yaşar, M. (2019). Development of a “Perceived Stress Scale” based on classical test theory and graded response model. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(3), 522-538. https://dx.doi.org/10.21449/ijate.626053
47. Yazar, S. (2026). Yazılım mühendisliği eğitiminde üretici yapay zekâ destekli hata üretme ve ayıklamaya dayalı öğrenimin öğrencilerin mesleki öz-yeterlilikleri üzerindeki etkisi. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 112-130. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1890338
48. Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168400800201
49. Zuya, H. E., Kwalat, S. K., & Attah, B. G. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(14), 93-98.