Amaç: 4;0-8;11 yaş aralığındaki tipik gelişim gösteren çocukların fonolojik farkındalık becerilerini ölçen geçerli ve güvenilir bir test geliştirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Türkçe Fonolojik Farkındalık Testi (FFT), dört dilbilimsel düzeyi içeren 16 alt testten oluşmaktadır. FFT, 524 tipik gelişim gösteren (TGG) ve 30 konuşma sesi bozukluğu olan (KSB) katılımcıya uygulanmıştır. Uygulamalar iki pilot uygulama ve bir ana uygulama olmak üzere üç aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. FFT'nin geçerliliğini test etmek için kapsam geçerliliği, yapı geçerliliği, ayırt edici geçerlilik analizleri; güvenirliliğini test etmek için iç tutarlılık ve nesnellik analizleri yapılmıştır. Bulgular: FFT'nin kapsam geçerliliğini sağlamak için uzman görüşü alınmıştır ve deneme uygulamalarından elde edilen sonuçlar değerlendirilmiştir. FFT'nin dilbilimsel düzey açısından 4 boyutlu ve görevler açısından 16 boyutlu kuramsal yapısı doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle doğrulanmıştır. Korelasyona dayalı yöntemlerle de alt test puanları ile toplam test puanı arasındaki ilişki saptanmış ve yapı geçerliliği desteklenmiştir. FFT'nin TGG'li grupla KSB'li grubu ayırt etme gücünün yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. İç tutarlılık analizleri, Kuder Richardson (K-20) ve yarıya bölme yöntemleriyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Puanlayıcılar arası güvenirlilik ve gözlemciler arası güvenililik ile nesnellik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu analizler sonucunda da FFT'nin güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu ortaya konmuştur. Sonuç: FFT, 4;0-8;11 yaş aralığındaki tipik gelişim gösteren çocukların fonolojik farkındalık becerilerini değerlendirmek için kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Fonolojik farkındalık; geçerlilik; güvenirlilik; Türkçe Fonolojik Farkındalık Testi (FFT)
Objective: The purpose of the study is to develop a reliable and valid test to measure phonological awareness skills of typically developing children between 4;0-8;11 years of age. Material and Methods: Turkish Phonological Awareness Test (FFT) consists of 16 subtests with four linguistic levels. FFT was administered to 524 typically developing (TD) children and 30 children with speech sound disorders (SSD). The study was carried out in three stages as two pilot study and one main study. Content validity, construct validity, discriminant validity analyses were used to explore the validity of FFT. Internal consistency and objectivity analyses were used to explore the reliability of FFT. Results: The content validity of FFT has been provided by the expert opinion and the results obtained from the pilot studies. The results revealed the factorial structure of FFT with the confirmatory factor analysis both four-dimensional linguistic levels and sixteen-dimensional tasks. The relationship between the subtest scores and the total test score was tested by correlation-based methods and the construct validity was supported. FFT's discriminant validity was found to be high in terms of TD and SSD groups. Internal consistency analyzes were performed with Kuder Richardson (K- 20) and split-half methods. Inter-rater reliability and interobserver reliability analyzes were also performed. The results revealed that FFT is a reliable assessment tool. Conclusion: FFT is a valid and reliable assessment tool to assess phonological awareness skills of typically developed children between 4;0-8;11 years of age.
Keywords: Phonological awareness; validity; reliability; Turkish Phonological Awareness Test (FFT)
- Anthony JL, Francis DJ. Development of phonological awareness. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(5):255-9. [Crossref]
- Blachman BA. What we have learned from longitudinal studies of phonological awareness and reading, and some unanswered questions: a response to Torgessen, Wagner, and Rashotte. J Learn Disabil. 1994;27(5): 287-91. [Crossref]
- Chard DJ, Dickson SV. Phonological awareness: instructional and assessment guidelines. Interv Sch Clin. 1999;34(5):261-70. [Crossref]
- Gillon GT. Phonological awareness defined. Theoretical background. Phonological Awareness from Research to Practice. 1st ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2004. p.1-36.
- Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL, Barker TA. Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. J Educ Psych ol. 1998;90(2):294-311. [Crossref]
- Anthony JL, Lonigan CJ. The nature of phonological awareness: converging evidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. J Educ Psychol. 2004;96(1): 43-55. [Crossref]
- Dodd B, Gillon G. Exploring the relationship between phonological awareness, speech impairment and literacy. Adv Speech Lang Pathol. 2001;3(2):139-47. [Crossref]
- Yopp HK, Yopp RH. Supporting phonemic awareness development in the classroom. Reading Teacher. 2000;54(2):130-43. [Crossref]
- Yopp HK. Developing phonemic awareness in young-children. Read Teach. 1992;45(9):696-703.
- Anthony JL, Lonigan CJ, Driscoll K, Phillips BM, Burgess SR. Phonological sensitivity: a quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive operations. Read Res Q. 2003;38(4):470-87. [Crossref]
- Schaefer B, Fricke S, Szczerbinski M, Fox-Boyer AV, Stackhouse J, Wells B. Development of a test battery for assessing phonological awareness in German-speaking children. Clin Linguist Phon. 2009;23(6):404-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Pullen PC, Justice LM. Enhancing phonological awareness, print awareness, and oral language skills in preschool children. Interv Sch Clin. 2003;39(2):87-98. [Crossref]
- van Kleeck A, Gillam RB, McFadden TU. A study of classroom-based phonological awareness training for preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1998;7(3):65-76. [Crossref]
- Caravolas M, Volín J, Hulme C. Phoneme awareness is a key component of alphabetic literacy skills in consistent and inconsistent orthographies: evidence from Czech and English children. J Exp Child Psychol. 2005;92(2):107-39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hulme C. Phonemes, rimes, and the mechanisms of early reading development. J Exp Child Psychol. 2002;82(1):58-64. [Crossref]
- Mann VA, Foy JG. Phonological awareness, speech development, and letter knowledge in preschool children. Ann Dyslexia. 2003;53(1): 149-73. [Crossref]
- Rvachew S, Ohberg A, Grawburg M, Heyding J. Phonological awareness and phonemic perception in 4-year-old children [Crossref]
- Moyle MJ, Heilmann J, Berman SS. Assessment of early developing phonological awareness skills: a comparison of the preschool individual growth and development indicators and the phonological awareness and literacy screening-preK. Early Educ Dev. 2013;24(5): 668-86. [Crossref]
- Francis D, Carlo M, August D, Kenyon D, Malabonga V, Caglarcan S, Louguit M. Test of phonological processing in Spanish. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics; 2001.
- Torgesen JK, Bryant BR. Test of phonological awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED; 1993.
- Torgesen JK, Davis C. Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. J Exp Child Psychol. 1996;63(1):1-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yopp HK. A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. Read Teach. 1995;49(1):20-9. [Crossref]
- Rosner J, Simon DP. The auditory analysis test: an initial report. J Learn Disabil. 1971;4(7):384-92. [Crossref]
- Bruce DJ. The analysis of word sounds by young chidren. Br J Educ Psychol. 1964;34(2):158-70. [Crossref]
- Hodson BW. Hodson's Assessment of Phonological Patterns. 3rd ed. Austin: TX: Pro-Ed; 2004.
- Invernizzi M, Meier J, Juel C. PALS 1-3: Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening 1-3. 6th ed. Charlottesville, VA: University Printing Services; 2007.
- Invernizzi M, Swank L, Juel C. PALS-K: Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening-Kindergarten. 6th ed. Charlottesville: University Printing Services; 2007.
- Invernizzi M, Sullivan A, Swank L, Meier J. PALS Pre-K: Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Preschoolers. 2nd ed. Charlottesville, VA: University Printing Services; 2004. [Crossref]
- Robertson C, Salter W. The phonological awareness test. 2nd ed. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems; 2007.
- Durgunoglu AY, Oney B. A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing. 1999;11(4):281-99. [Crossref]
- Erdoğan Ö. Relationship between the phonological awareness skills and writing skills of the first year students at primary school. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 2011;11(3): 1499-510.
- Erdoğan Ö. The relationship between the phonological awareness skills and reading skills of the first year students at primary school. Eğitim ve Bilim Education and Science. 2012;37(166):41-51.
- Akoğlu G, Turan F. [Phonological awareness as an educational intervention approach: effects on reading skills with mentally retarted children]. HU Journal of Education. 2012;42:11-22.
- Turan F, Akoğlu G. Phonological awareness training in pre-school period. Education & Science. 2011;36(161):64-75.
- Turan F, Akoglu G. Home literacy environment and phonological awareness skills in preschool children. HU Journal of Education. 2014;29(3):153-66.
- Karaman G, Ustun E. [Phonological awareness analysis of children who attends preschool to different variables]. HU Journal of Education. 2011;40:267-78.
- Acarlar F, Ege P, Turan F. [Development of metalinguistic abilities and its relationship with reading in Turkish children]. Turkish Journal of Psychology. 2002;17(50):63-73.
- Sarı B, Aktan Acar E. The phonological awareness scale of early childhood period (pasecp) development and psychometric features. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 2013;13(4):2195-215.
- Turan F, Gül G. Sesbilgisel Farkındalık Beceleri: Okul Öncesi Dönemde Etkileri. 4. Ulusal Dil ve Konuşma Bozuklukları Kongresi. İstanbul: Yeditepe Üniversitesi; 2007.
- Yangın B, Erdoğan Ö, Erdoğan T. Fonolojik Farkındalık Ölçeği. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Kongre Kitabı; III. Uluslararası Dünya Dili Türkçe Sempozyumu; 2010. p.210-8.
- Büyüktaşkapu S. Adaptation of Mountain Shadows Phonological Awareness Scale (MS-PAS) into Turkish and Validity and Reliability Study. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences. 2012;4(2):509-18.
- Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME. Test Geliştirme. Psikolojik Test ve Değerleme: Testelere ve Ölçmeye Giriş. Tavşancıl E, çeviri editörü. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2013. p.233-76.
- Neilson R. Sutherland Phonological Awareness Test: Revised. Jamberoo: Language Speech and Literacy Services; 2003.
- Wagner RK, Torgesen JK, Rashotte CA, Pearson NA. CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. 2nd ed. Austin: TX: Pro-Ed; 2013. [Crossref]
- Şencan H. [Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurements]. Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık; 2005. p.482-5.
- Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006;34(6):806-38. [Crossref]
- Erkuş A. Psikometri Üzerine Yazılar. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği; 2003. p.182.
- Tabachnik BG, Fidell LS. Çok Değişkenli İstatistiklerin Kullanımı. Bıçak B, Çetin B, Erdem C, Şekercioğlu G, Kabasakal KA, Özer M, et al, çeviri editörleri. 6. Baskı. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2015.
- Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behav Res. 1990;25(2):173-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-46. PMID: 2320703 [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1-55. [Crossref]
- Erkuş A. Psikolojide Ölçme ve Ölçek Geliştirme I: Temel Kavramlar ve İşlemler. 2. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları; 2014. p.173.
.: Process List