KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 17 Issue: 2

Scale Transformation for Multidimensional Tests According to Unidimensional and Multidimensional Methods

Yaşar Mehmet Zor(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-4149-5981
Hülya Kelecioğlu(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-0741-9934
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-07-02
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Lower RMSE values were estimated when the difference in ability distribution was low.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In this study, it was aimed to examine the performance of scale transformation methods using MIRT and UIRT.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:For this purpose, two-dimensional and simple structured test data were generated.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Lower RMSE values were estimated when the difference in ability distribution was low.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:item response theory · multidimensional item response theory · test equating

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to examine the performance of scale transformation methods using MIRT and UIRT. For this purpose, two-dimensional and simple structured test data were generated. The conditions addressed in the study are sample size, interdimensional correlation, common item ratio, difference in ability distribution and parameter estimation model. Mean-mean, mean-sigma and Stocking-Lord methods were used as scale transformation methods and RMSE was taken as an evaluation criterion. RMSE values were estimated as a result of the scale transformations using NEAT design and compared with the independent samples t-test. Lower RMSE values were estimated in unidimensional methods for parameter a, multidimensional methods for parameter b and ability parameter, and statistically significant differences were found in favour of unidimensional methods for parameter a and multidimensional methods for parameter b and ability parameter. Lower RMSE values were obtained in conditions with high sample size and common item ratio. Multidimensional methods performed better when the interdimensional correlation was low, and unidimensional methods performed better when the interdimensional correlation was high. Lower RMSE values were estimated when the difference in ability distribution was low.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Zor, Y. M., Kelecioğlu, H. (2026). Scale Transformation for Multidimensional Tests According to Unidimensional and Multidimensional Methods. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Volume: 17 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1645385

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (34)

  1. Angoff, W. H. (1984). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
  2. Atar, B. & Yeşiltaş, G. (2017). Çok boyutlu eşitleme yöntemlerinin eşdeğer olmayan gruplarda ortak madde deseni için performanslarının incelenmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve DeğerlendirmeDergisi, 8(4), 421-434. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.335284
  3. 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 (Ed.), Test equating (s. 9-49). New York: Academic Press.
  4. Beguin, A. A. & Hanson, B. A. (2001). Effect of noncompensatory multidimensionality on separate and concurrent estimation in IRT observed score equating. Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
  5. Bökeoğlu, Ö., Uçar, A. and Balta, E. (2022). Madde tepki kuramına dayalı gerçek puan eşitlemede ölçek dönüştürme yöntemlerinin incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi. 55(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.1001128
  6. Brossman, B. G. (2010). Observed score and true score equating procedures for multidimensional item response theory (Doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa.
  7. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). Mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  8. Chu, K. L. & Kamata, A. (2003). Test equating with the presence of DIF. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Press.
  10. Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Applied regression analysis (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Gök, B. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2014). Denk olmayan gruplarda ortak madde deseni kullanılarak madde tepki kuramına dayalı eşitleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 120-136. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.78698
  12. Gübeş, N. Ö. (2014). The Effects of Test Dimensionality, Common Item Format, Ability Distribution and Scale Transformation Methods on Mixed-Format Test Equating (Doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
  13. Gübeş, N. Ö. (2019). Test Eşitlemede Çok Boyutluluğun Eş Zamanlı ve Ayrı Kalibrasyona Etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(4), 1061-1074. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019049186
  14. Han, K. T. (2009). IRTEQ: Windows application that implements IRT scaling and equating [computer program]. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(6), 491-493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621608319513
  15. Hanson, B. A. & Beguin, A.A. (2002). Obtaining a common scale for item response theory item parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the common-item equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621602026001001
  16. Kelecioğlu, H. (2024). Test Eşitleme. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Derneği E-Yayınları. Retrieved from https://kitap.epodder.org/test-esitleme
  17. Kilmen, S. & Demirtaşlı, N. (2012). Comparison of test equating methods based on item response theory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46(2012), 130-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.081
  18. Kim, H.Y. (2014). A comparison of smoothing methods for the common item nonequivalent groups design. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa
  19. Kim, S. Y. (2018). Simple structure MIRT equating for multidimensional tests (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa.
  20. Kim, S., Lee, W. C. and Kolen, M. J. (2020). Simple-Structure Multidimensional Item Response Theory Equating for Multidimensional Tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 80(1), 91-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419854208
  21. Kim, S.Y. and Lee, W.C. (2023), Several Variations of Simple-Structure MIRT Equating. Journal of Educational Measurement, 60: 76-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12341
  22. Kolen, M. J. & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd edition). New York: Springer.
  23. Kumlu, G. (2019). Test ve alt testlerde eşitlemenin farklı koşullar açısından incelenmesi (Doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  24. Loyd, B. H. & Hoover, H. D. (1980). Vertical equating using the rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17(3), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1980.tb00825.x
  25. Marco, G. L. (1977). Item characteristic curve solutions to three intractable testing problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1977.tb00033.x
  26. Min, K. S. (2003). The impact of scale dilation on the quality of the linking of multidimensional item response theory calibrations. Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
  27. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing: R foundation for statistical computing.
  28. Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York: Springer.
  29. Speron, E. (2009). A comparison of metric linking procedures in Item Response Theory (doctoral dissetration). University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois.
  30. Stocking, M. L. & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168300700208
  31. Wei, Y. (2008). A simulation study on the performance of four multidimensional IRT scale linking methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida.
  32. Xu, Y. (2009). Measuring change in jurisdiction achievement over time: Equating issues in current international assessment programs (Doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.
  33. Yao, L. (2009). LinkMIRT: Linking of multivariate item response model. Monterey, CA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
  34. Zhang, J. (2012). Calibration of response data using MIRT models with simple and mixed structures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(5), 375-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612445904