SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2025 / Volume: 16 Issue: 4

Determining the Constructs Measured by the High School Entrance Exam (LGS): A Study of Construct Validity

İsmail Karakaya(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0003-4308-6919
Gökhan Gümüş(Hatay Mustafa Kemal University)0000-0002-4161-0425
Hanifi Özdemir(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0009-0005-4072-0197
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicated that the explained variance rates for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 LGS exams were 42.8%, 47%, and 42.2%, respectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In many countries, various examinations are administered to assess the readiness of middle school students for high school admission.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although the implementation of such exams varies across countries, since 2018, Turkey has adopted a centralized examination system known as the High School Entrance Exam (LGS).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicated that the explained variance rates for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 LGS exams were 42.8%, 47%, and 42.2%, respectively.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:High School Entrance Exam (LGS) · Construct Validity · Tetrachoric Exploratory Factor Analysis

Abstract

In many countries, various examinations are administered to assess the readiness of middle school students for high school admission. These exams aim to select students with the highest levels of knowledge and skills among a large pool of applicants for a limited number of elite schools. Although the implementation of such exams varies across countries, since 2018, Turkey has adopted a centralized examination system known as the High School Entrance Exam (LGS). The sustainability of these exams in line with their intended purposes depends on factors such as the examination process, test items, and instructions. However, it is not always possible to claim that the items used in these exams adequately reflect the intended constructs. Therefore, the present study aims to examine the construct validity of the LGS exams administered in Turkey in 2022, 2023, and 2024. To this end, a research sample of 32,400 students was randomly selected by the Ministry of National Education. Data from 10,800 students for each year (2022, 2023, and 2024) were analyzed. Due to the dichotomous (0–1) nature of the data, Tetrachoric Exploratory Factor Analysis (TEFA) was employed instead of traditional Exploratory Factor Analysis. The findings indicated that the explained variance rates for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 LGS exams were 42.8%, 47%, and 42.2%, respectively. Furthermore, the test items were found to load onto two distinct factors. Upon examining the content of these factors, it was determined that the first factor primarily consisted of items assessing reading comprehension skills, whereas the second factor included items that required the application of knowledge. The results suggest that the LGS exams administered in 2022, 2023, and 2024 predominantly consist of items measuring reading comprehension skills, and that these items account for the majority of the explained variance.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karakaya, İ., Gümüş, G., Özdemir, H. (2025). Determining the Constructs Measured by the High School Entrance Exam (LGS): A Study of Construct Validity. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Volume: 16 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1766429

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Arıkan, S. (2010). Construct validity and factor structure of student selection examination across subgroups (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye.
  2. Atılgan, H. (2018). Türkiye’de Kademeler Arası Geçiş: Dünü-Bugünü ve Bir Model Önerisi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.363268
  3. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (27. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (28. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  5. Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
  6. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  7. Fabrigar, L. R. & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
  8. Gündoğdu, K., Kızıltaş, E. & Çimen, N. (2010). Seviye Belirleme Sınavına (SBS) İlişkin Öğrenci ve Öğretmen Görüşleri (Erzurum il örneği). Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 316-330.
  9. Haladyna, T. M. & Downing, S. M. (2005). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00149.x
  10. Herman, J. L. (2007). Accountability and assessment: Is public interest in K–12 education being served? (CRESST Report 728). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499421
  11. Jin, Y. & Yan, M. (2017). Computer literacy and the construct validity of a high-stakes computer-based writing assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1261293
  12. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
  13. Kayapınar, E. (2006). Research into anxiety level of the 8th grades students at primary schools preparing for secondary school student selection and placement examination (The sample of Afyonkarahisar city). (Unpublished master's thesis), Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Türkiye.
  14. Kutlu, Ö. & Karakaya, İ. (2007). A Research on defining the factor structures of tests used at secondary schools student selection and placement test. Elementary Education Online, 6(3), 397-410.
  15. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-97348-002
  16. Ministry of National Education (2020). Sınavla öğrenci alacak ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezî sınav başvuru ve uygulama kılavuzu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_05/06105923_BasYvuru_ve_Uygulama_KYlavuzu_2020_GuYncel.pdf
  17. Ministry of National Education (2024). Sınavla öğrenci alacak ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezî sınav başvuru ve uygulama kılavuzu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. https://amsterdam.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_03/21123424_lgssinavkilavuzu2024.pdf
  18. Ministry of National Education (2025). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli, Öğretim programları ortak metni. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/brosur/ortak_metin.pdf National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
  19. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  20. OECD. (2019). OECD skills strategy 2019: Skills to shape a better future. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264313835-en
  21. Öner, G. & Bahadırtaş, Ş. (2022). Transition process from TEOG to LGS: Experiences of Eighth-grade branch teachers. Educational Academic Research, 45(2), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.54614/AUJKKEF.2022.825407
  22. Peterson, R. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008191211004
  23. Poyraz, K. & Ergün, M. (2023). A study on high school entrance exams (LGS). International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 14(54), 1517–1535. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.4403
  24. Şad, S. N. & Şahiner, Y. K. (2016). Students’ Teachers’ and Parents’ Views about Transition from Basic Education to Secondary Education (BESE) System. Elementary Education Online, 15(1), 53-76.
  25. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  26. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2020). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı [Using multivariate statistics] (M. Baloğlu, Trans.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
  27. Tinsley, H. E. & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414
  28. Tuna, S. & Seçkin Kapucu, M. (2022). Analysis of high school entrance exam (LGS) questions in terms of PISA scientific literacy. Journal of STEAM Education, 5(1), 31–54.
  29. Uygun, N. (2008). Validity of science items in the Student Selection Test in Turkey (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye.
  30. Yıldız, M., Kabaran, H. & Yaşar Sağlık, Z. (2024). An analysis of secondary school placement exams (OKS, SBS, TEOG, LGS) in terms of word counts and frequencies. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 22(2), 919–943. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1336962