Karma Testlerin Eşitlenmesinde MTK Eşitleme Yöntemlerinin Eşitlik Özelliği Korunumu Ölçütüne Göre Karşılaştırılması

Bu araştırmada, karma testlerin eşitlenmesinde madde tepki kuramına (MTK) dayalı gerçek puan eşitleme ve gözlenen puan eşitleme yöntemleri test eşitlemenin eşitlik özelliği korunumu ölçütüne dayalı olarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırma, eşdeğer olmayan gruplar ortak test deseni kullanılarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırma verilerini, TIMSS 2011 8. Sınıf Türkiye örnekleminde yer alan öğrencilerin 5. ve 6. kitapçıkta yer alan matematik testlerine verdiği cevaplar oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma sonucunda, MTK gerçek-puan eşitleme yönteminin birinci-sıra eşitlik özelliğini korumada daha iyi performans gösterdiği, MTK gözlenen-puan eşitleme yönteminin ise ikinci-sıra eşitlik özelliğini korumada daha iyi performans gösterdiği bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Madde Tepki Kuramı, gerçek-puan eşitleme, gözlenen-puan eşitleme, eşitlik özelliği

-

In this study, Item Response Theory (IRT) true-score equating and observed-score equating methods were compared based on preserving test equity property. The data used in this study were 8th grade mathematics test item responses which obtained from booklet 5 and 6 of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) (TIMSS) 2011 Turkey sample. Results showed that while IRT true-score equating outperformed IRT observed-score equating in terms preserving first-order equity, however IRT observed-score equating method IRT true- score equating in terms of second order equity property

Keywords:

Item Response Theory, true-score equating, observed-score equating, equity property,

PDF

___

Angoff, W.H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement
(2nd ed., pp.508-600).Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Braun, H.I., & Holland, P.W. (1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In P.W. Holland and D.B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9-49). New York: Academic.
Divgi, D.R. (1981). Two direct procedures for scaling and equating tests with item response theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Los Angels.
Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley.
Haebara, T. (1980). Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Japanese Psychological
Resarch, 22(3). 144-149.
Haladyna, T.M. (1997). Writing test items to evaluate higher order thinking. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Harris, D.J. & Crouse, J.D. (1993). A study of criteria used in equating. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 195-240.
He, Y. (2011). Evaluating equating properties for mixed-format tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Kim, S. & Kolen, M. J. (2004). STUIRT [computer program]. Iowa City, IA: The Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment (CASMA), The University of Iowa.
Kim, S. ,& Walker, M. (2012). Determining the anchor composition for a mixed format test: Evaluation of subpopulation invariance of linking functions. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 178-195.
Kirkpatrick, R.K. (2005). The effects of item format in common item equating. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Kolen, M.J. (2004a). POLYEQUATE [computer program].Iowa City,IA: The Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment (CASMA), The University of Iowa.
Kolen, M.J. (2004b). POLYCSEM [computer program]. Iowa City, IA: The Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment (CASMA), The University of Iowa.
Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. (2004). Test equating: Methods and practices (2nd ed.).New York, NY:Springer-Verlag.
Lee, E., Lee, W-C., and Brennan R. L. (2012). Exploring equity properties in equating using AP examinations.
(College Board Research Report No. 4).
Levine, R. (1955). Equating the score scales of alternate forms administered to samples of different ability (Research Bulletin 55-23). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Livingston, S.A. (2009). Constructed-Response test questions: Why we use them; How we score them (R & D Connections, No. 11). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Retrived from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections11.pdf .
Morris, C.N. (1982). On the foundations of test equating. In p. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.) Test equating (pp. 169-191). New York: Academic.
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. (2003). PARSCALE 4.1. Chicago, IL:Scientific Software International.
Tong, Y., & Kolen, M. J. (2005). Assessing equating results on different equating criteria. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 29(6), 418-432.
Xu, Y. (2009). Measuring change in jurisdiction achievement over time: Equating issues in current international assessment programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.