Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://earsiv.odu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11489/2976
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAkin Arikan, Cigdem-
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-19T11:23:09Z-
dc.date.available2022-08-19T11:23:09Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.urihttp://ejer.com.tr/public/assets/catalogs/0868620001564601099.pdf-
dc.identifier.urihttp://earsiv.odu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11489/2976-
dc.description.abstractProblem Statement: Equating can be defined as a statistical process that allows modifying the differences between test forms with similar content and difficulty so that the scores obtained from these forms can be used interchangeably. In the literature, there are many equating methods, one of which is Kernel equating. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) aims to find out the knowledge and skills gained by the fourth and eighth-grade students in the fields of mathematics and science. TIMSS have different test forms, and these forms are equated through common items. Purpose of the Study: This research aimed to compare the equated score results of the Kernel equating (KE) methods, which are chained, and post-stratification equipercentile and linear equating methods under NEAT design. Methodology: TIMMS Science data were used in this study. The study sample consisted of 865 eighth-grade examinees who were given the Booklets 1 and 14 during the TIMSS application in Turkey. There were 39 items in Booklet 1, and 38 items in Booklet 14. Firstly, descriptive statistics were calculated and then the two Booklets were equated according to NEAT design based on Kernel chained, Kernel post-stratification equipercentile, and linear equating methods. Secondly, the equating methods were evaluated according to some criteria such as DTM, PRE, SEE, SEED, and RMSD. Findings and Results: It was seen that results based on equipercentile and linear equating methods were consistent with each other, except for a high range of the score scale. PRE values demonstrated that KE equipercentile equating methods better matched with the discrete target distribution Y, and distribution of SEED revealed that KE equipercentile and linear methods were not significantly different from each other according to DTM. (C) 2019 Ani Publishing Ltd. All rights reserveden_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherANI YAYINCILIK, KIZILIRMAK SOK NO 10-A, BAKANLIKLAR, ANKARA 00000, TURKEYen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.14689/ejer.2019.82.2en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectEquating; equipercentile; linear; RMSD SEED; SEEen_US
dc.titleA Comparison of Kernel Equating Methods Based on Neat Designen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalEURASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOrdu Üniversitesien_US
dc.identifier.volume82en_US
dc.identifier.startpage27en_US
dc.identifier.endpage44en_US
Appears in Collections:Eğitim Bilimleri

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.