Test eşitleme: OKS testlerinin istatistiksel eşitliğinin sınanması

Bu araştırma ile farklı yıllarda uygulanan OKS test formlarının istatistiksel eşitliğini sınamak amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma çeşitli ilköğretim kurumlarında öğrenim gören 1030 sekizinci sınıf öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Bu amaç doğrultusunda klasik eşitleme metotlarından lineer eşitleme ve tek grup düzeneği kullanılmıştır. Aynı zamanda eşitleme işleminin bir parçası olarak tek grup düzeneği için eşitleme hatası (SHE) kestirilmiştir. İki testin eşitliğini değerlendirmek için eşitlemenin standart hatasına dayalı güven aralıkları kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, eşitlik fonksiyonu ve özdeşlik fonksiyonu arasında –0,14 ile 0,833 arasında değişen farklılıklar olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu farklılıkların bazı puan ranjlarında 2 SHE’den fazla olması sebebiyle 2003 ve 2005 yıllarında uygulanan OKS test versiyonlarının istatistiksel olarak birbirine eşit olmadığı ve birbirinin yerine kullanılamayacağı saptanmıştır

Test equating: Checking statistical equivalance of OKS test edition

In this study, it was aimed to check the statistical equivalence of OKS test edition applied in different years. The data of the study was collected from 1030 8th grade students from various secondary schools. Single group design and linear equating procedure from classical equating methodologies were used in the study. At the same time, as a part of the equating process, SEEs (Standart error of equating) for single group were estimated. Confidence bands based on the SEE were used to assess equivalence of OKS test edition. As a result of the study, differences were found between equating function and identity function, differences ranging from –0,14 to 0,833. Because these differences are more than two SEEs for some score range, the two OKS test edition applied 2003 and 2005 can not be considered equivalent and interchangeable.

PDF

___

Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scale, norms and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Eds.) Educational Measurement (2nd. Ed.) Washington D.C; American Council of Education.
Angoff, W. H. (1982). Summary and derivation of equating methods used at ETS. In P.W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.). Test Equating. New York: Academic Press.
Barnard, J. J. (1996). “In search for equity in educational measurement: Traditional versus modern equating methods.” Paper presented at ASEESA’s national conference at the HRSC Conference Centre, Pretoria, South Africa.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. San Diego, C.A: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publisher.
Davier, A. A., Holland, P. W. & Thayer, D.T. (2004). The chain and post stratification methods for observed-score equating: Their relationship to population invariance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41(1), 15-32.
Dorans, N. J. (1990). Equating methods and sampling design. Applied Measurement In Education. 3(1), 3-17.
Dorans, N. J. (2000). Research notes: Distinctions among classes of linkages. The College Board, Office of Research and Development.
Dorans, N. J., & Lawrence, I., M. (1990). Checking the statistical equivalence of nearly identical test editions. Applied Measurement In Education. 3(3), 245-254.
Felan, G. D. (2002). Test equating: Mean, linear, equipercentile and item resonse theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. Austin, TX.
Gulliksen, H. (1967). Theory of mental tests. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
Harris, D. J. (2003). Equating the multistate bar examination. The Bar Examiner, 72(3), 12-16.
Holland, P. W., Sinharay, S., Davier, A. A., & Han, N. (2008). An approach to evaluating the missing data assumptions of the chain and post-stratificationequating methods for the NEAT design. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(1), 17-43.
Jaeger, M. R. (1981). Some exploratory indices for selection of a test equating method. Journal of Educational Measurement. 18(1), 23-38.
Bozdağ, S., ve Kan, A. (2010). Şans Başarısının Test Eşitlemeye etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 91-108.
Kolen, M. J. (1988). An NCME instructional module on traditional equating methodologhy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 7, 29-36
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.
Livingstone, S. A. (2004). Equating test scores (Without IRT). Educational Testing Service.
Lord, F. M. (1955). Equating test scores- a maximum likelihood solution. Psychometrica, 20, 193- 200.
Lord, F. M. (1982). The standart error of equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 165-192.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, M.A: Addison- Wesley.
Tanguma, J. (2000). “Equating test scores using the linear method: A primer.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. Dallas, TX.
Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applied psychometrics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Wooldbeck, T. (1998). “Basic concept in modern methods of test equating.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Psychological Association New Orleans, L. A.
Zhu, W. (1998). Test equating: What, why, how? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(1), 11-23.