SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4

EQUATION OF MATHS SUBTESTS IN THE TRANSITION FROM PRIMARY TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (TEOG) AND MAKEUP EXAMINATION ACCORDING TO ITEM RESPONSE THEORY

TEMEL EĞİTİMDEN ORTAÖĞRETİME GEÇİŞ MATEMATİK ALT TESTİ ASIL SINAV VE MAZERET SINAVLARININ MADDE TEPKİ KURAMINA GÖRE EŞİTLENMESİ

Ömay ÇOKLUK BÖKEOĞLU
Emrah GÜL
Çilem DOĞAN GÜL
Mustafa ÖZKAN
Pages
1900–1915
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️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 of the study have shown that, when compared to the others, the Stocking-Lord method is more appropriate to equate the maths subtests of TEOG main exam and make-up examinations

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the study is to equate maths subtests of TEOG main exam and make-up examination by using Item Response Theory-based methods and to decide which equation method is appropriate.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It could be suggested that it is a fundamental research.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings of the study have shown that, when compared to the others, the Stocking-Lord method is more appropriate to equate the maths subtests of TEOG main exam and make-up examinations
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to equate maths subtests of TEOG main exam and make-up examination by using Item Response Theory-based methods and to decide which equation method is appropriate. It could be suggested that it is a fundamental research. For test equalization, itemperson parameters were estimated, using flexMIRT programme. R “equateIRT” pack was employed for the equation. The research results have shown that the minimum number of equation errors is obtained from characteristic curve methods. It could also be suggested that the StockingLord method gives the lowest equation error number. The mean-mean method produces the highest equation error number. The findings of the study have shown that, when compared to the others, the Stocking-Lord method is more appropriate to equate the maths subtests of TEOG main exam and make-up examinations

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacını TEOG asıl sınav matematik alt testi ile TEOG mazeret sınavı matematik alt testlerinin Madde Tepki Kuramı'na (MTK) dayalı yöntemler kullanılarak eşitlenmesi ve hangi eşitleme yönteminin daha uygun olduğuna karar verilmesi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın temel araştırma niteliği taşıdığı ifade edilebilir. Testlerin eşitlenmesi için, madde ve birey parametreleri flexMIRT programı kullanılarak kestirilmiştir. Eşitleme işlemi R "equateIRT" paketi kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, en düşük eşitleme hatasının karakteristik eğri yöntemlerinden elde edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu yöntemlerden de en düşük eşitleme hatasının Stocking-Lord yönteminden elde edildiği belirtilebilir. Ortalama-Ortalama yöntemi ise en yüksek eşitleme hatası üreten yöntemdir. Bu araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular Stocking-Lord yönteminin TEOG asıl sınav ve mazeret sınavı kapsamında yer alan matematik alt testlerinin eşitlenmesinde daha uygun olduğunu göstermiştir

🔖

Cite This Article

BÖKEOĞLU, Ö. Ç., GÜL, E., GÜL, Ç. D., ÖZKAN, M. (2022). EQUATION OF MATHS SUBTESTS IN THE TRANSITION FROM PRIMARY TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (TEOG) AND MAKEUP EXAMINATION ACCORDING TO ITEM RESPONSE THEORY. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4, 1900–1915. https://ajindex.com/articles/426610

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement (p. 509-600). Washington: American Council on Education. Angoff, W. H. (1981). Summary and derivation of equating methods used at ETS. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.). Test Equating. New York: Academic Press.
  2. Baker, F. B. & Al-Karni, A. (1991). A Comparison of two procedures for computing IRT Equating Coefficients. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28 (2), 147-162.
  3. 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. Battauz, M. (2013). IRT test equating in complex linkage plans. Psychometrika, 78, 464- 480. Battauz, M. (2015). equateIRT: An R Package for IRT Test Equating. Accepted for publication in Journal of Statistical Software. Braun, H. I., & Holland, P. W. (1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9–49). New York: Academic. Casbarro, J. (2004). Reducing anxiety in the era of highstakes testing. Principals, 83(5), 36- 38. Chu, K. L. & Kamata, A. (2000). Nonequivalent Group Equating via 1-P HGLLM. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Cizek, G. J. (2001). Cheating to the test. Education Matters Journal, 1(1), 40-47.
  4. Cohen, A. S. & Kim, S. H. (1998). An ınvestigation of linking methods under the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22 (2), 116-130.
  5. Dorans, N. J. (2000). Research notes: distinctions among classes of linkages. The College Board, Office of Research and Development. Haebara, T. (1980). Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Japanese Psychological Research, 22 (3), 144-149.
  6. Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston: Academic Puslishers Group. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park CA: Sage. Hanson, B. A. & Beguin, A. A. (2002). Obtaining a common scale for ıtem response theory ıtem parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the commonıtem equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26 (1), 3–24.
  7. Hung, P., Wu, Y., & Chen, Y. (1991). IRT Item Parameter Linking: Relevant Issues for the Purpose of Item Bank