PPSE P21 and P10 Calculation Method and Related Issues

This study examined the calculation methods of P121 and P10 scores used in teacher appointments. The statistics regarding the Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) subtests used by Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (MSPC) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were accessed from the website of the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of assessment tools in education 2021, Vol.8 (4), p.744
1. Verfasser: Celen, Umit
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 4
container_start_page 744
container_title International journal of assessment tools in education
container_volume 8
creator Celen, Umit
description This study examined the calculation methods of P121 and P10 scores used in teacher appointments. The statistics regarding the Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) subtests used by Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (MSPC) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were accessed from the website of the institution. The parameters not published on this webpage were calculated by using the candidates' results. The public openly debates the allegations made by the candidates who took the exam in 2019 that their scores had been miscalculated for various reasons and the examinee scores, in fact, had to be higher. The study was conducted (i) to determine whether such disparity actually existed, (ii) and if so, the reason behind it, (iii) how the differences arising from the parameters in the formula being used to calculate the scores would affect exam takers' scores. In particular, the study identified the issues caused by converting the scores obtained by using different subtests in the same manner in calculating P121 without considering an equating method. Based on the examined exam scores for the last three-years, it was concluded that 2019 candidates were disadvantaged in most teaching fields. Based on the findings, it is suggested that (i) the use weighted standard scores instead of P121 and P110, to calculate separate scores for each teaching field is better and (ii) the validity period of such exam scores should be limited to one year.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>eric_GA5</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_EJ1329524</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1329524</ericid><sourcerecordid>EJ1329524</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-eric_primary_EJ13295243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0MjSx0DU3MTVjQWJzMPAWF2cZGBgYmpuZGFsacjKYBQQEuyoEGBkqJOalKAQYGig4J-Ykl-YklmTm5yn4ppZk5KeApYJSgWKpKQqexcWlqcU8DKxpiTnFqbxQmptB1s01xNlDN7UoMzm-oCgzN7GoMt7Vy9DYyNLUyMSYkDwAargwSA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>PPSE P21 and P10 Calculation Method and Related Issues</title><source>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</source><creator>Celen, Umit</creator><creatorcontrib>Celen, Umit</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined the calculation methods of P121 and P10 scores used in teacher appointments. The statistics regarding the Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) subtests used by Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (MSPC) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were accessed from the website of the institution. The parameters not published on this webpage were calculated by using the candidates' results. The public openly debates the allegations made by the candidates who took the exam in 2019 that their scores had been miscalculated for various reasons and the examinee scores, in fact, had to be higher. The study was conducted (i) to determine whether such disparity actually existed, (ii) and if so, the reason behind it, (iii) how the differences arising from the parameters in the formula being used to calculate the scores would affect exam takers' scores. In particular, the study identified the issues caused by converting the scores obtained by using different subtests in the same manner in calculating P121 without considering an equating method. Based on the examined exam scores for the last three-years, it was concluded that 2019 candidates were disadvantaged in most teaching fields. Based on the findings, it is suggested that (i) the use weighted standard scores instead of P121 and P110, to calculate separate scores for each teaching field is better and (ii) the validity period of such exam scores should be limited to one year.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2148-7456</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2148-7456</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education</publisher><subject>Foreign Countries ; Scores ; Teacher Competency Testing ; Teacher Placement ; Test Bias</subject><ispartof>International journal of assessment tools in education, 2021, Vol.8 (4), p.744</ispartof><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-7014-2221</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,687,776,881</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1329524$$EView_record_in_ERIC_Clearinghouse_on_Information_&amp;_Technology$$FView_record_in_$$GERIC_Clearinghouse_on_Information_&amp;_Technology$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1329524$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Celen, Umit</creatorcontrib><title>PPSE P21 and P10 Calculation Method and Related Issues</title><title>International journal of assessment tools in education</title><description>This study examined the calculation methods of P121 and P10 scores used in teacher appointments. The statistics regarding the Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) subtests used by Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (MSPC) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were accessed from the website of the institution. The parameters not published on this webpage were calculated by using the candidates' results. The public openly debates the allegations made by the candidates who took the exam in 2019 that their scores had been miscalculated for various reasons and the examinee scores, in fact, had to be higher. The study was conducted (i) to determine whether such disparity actually existed, (ii) and if so, the reason behind it, (iii) how the differences arising from the parameters in the formula being used to calculate the scores would affect exam takers' scores. In particular, the study identified the issues caused by converting the scores obtained by using different subtests in the same manner in calculating P121 without considering an equating method. Based on the examined exam scores for the last three-years, it was concluded that 2019 candidates were disadvantaged in most teaching fields. Based on the findings, it is suggested that (i) the use weighted standard scores instead of P121 and P110, to calculate separate scores for each teaching field is better and (ii) the validity period of such exam scores should be limited to one year.</description><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Scores</subject><subject>Teacher Competency Testing</subject><subject>Teacher Placement</subject><subject>Test Bias</subject><issn>2148-7456</issn><issn>2148-7456</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GA5</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYuA0MjSx0DU3MTVjQWJzMPAWF2cZGBgYmpuZGFsacjKYBQQEuyoEGBkqJOalKAQYGig4J-Ykl-YklmTm5yn4ppZk5KeApYJSgWKpKQqexcWlqcU8DKxpiTnFqbxQmptB1s01xNlDN7UoMzm-oCgzN7GoMt7Vy9DYyNLUyMSYkDwAargwSA</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Celen, Umit</creator><general>International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education</general><scope>ERI</scope><scope>GA5</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7014-2221</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>PPSE P21 and P10 Calculation Method and Related Issues</title><author>Celen, Umit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-eric_primary_EJ13295243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Scores</topic><topic>Teacher Competency Testing</topic><topic>Teacher Placement</topic><topic>Test Bias</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Celen, Umit</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</collection><jtitle>International journal of assessment tools in education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Celen, Umit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1329524</ericid><atitle>PPSE P21 and P10 Calculation Method and Related Issues</atitle><jtitle>International journal of assessment tools in education</jtitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>744</spage><pages>744-</pages><issn>2148-7456</issn><eissn>2148-7456</eissn><abstract>This study examined the calculation methods of P121 and P10 scores used in teacher appointments. The statistics regarding the Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) subtests used by Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (MSPC) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were accessed from the website of the institution. The parameters not published on this webpage were calculated by using the candidates' results. The public openly debates the allegations made by the candidates who took the exam in 2019 that their scores had been miscalculated for various reasons and the examinee scores, in fact, had to be higher. The study was conducted (i) to determine whether such disparity actually existed, (ii) and if so, the reason behind it, (iii) how the differences arising from the parameters in the formula being used to calculate the scores would affect exam takers' scores. In particular, the study identified the issues caused by converting the scores obtained by using different subtests in the same manner in calculating P121 without considering an equating method. Based on the examined exam scores for the last three-years, it was concluded that 2019 candidates were disadvantaged in most teaching fields. Based on the findings, it is suggested that (i) the use weighted standard scores instead of P121 and P110, to calculate separate scores for each teaching field is better and (ii) the validity period of such exam scores should be limited to one year.</abstract><pub>International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education</pub><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7014-2221</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 2148-7456
ispartof International journal of assessment tools in education, 2021, Vol.8 (4), p.744
issn 2148-7456
2148-7456
language eng
recordid cdi_eric_primary_EJ1329524
source ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)
subjects Foreign Countries
Scores
Teacher Competency Testing
Teacher Placement
Test Bias
title PPSE P21 and P10 Calculation Method and Related Issues
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T22%3A20%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-eric_GA5&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PPSE%20P21%20and%20P10%20Calculation%20Method%20and%20Related%20Issues&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20assessment%20tools%20in%20education&rft.au=Celen,%20Umit&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=744&rft.pages=744-&rft.issn=2148-7456&rft.eissn=2148-7456&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ceric_GA5%3EEJ1329524%3C/eric_GA5%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1329524&rfr_iscdi=true