BULLETIN 1/2023

ANALYSIS OF MULTILEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY TESTS

A.A. Abbosov
Agency for Assessment of Knowledge and Competences under the Ministry of Higher
Education, Science and Innovations of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
100084, Tashkent, Bogishamol str., 12

Abstract. A multilevel English proficiency test is a test that assesses a test

taker's English language skills at different levels of proficiency. This type of test is
becoming increasingly popular in educational and workplace settings, as it allows
for a more nuanced understanding of a test taker's language skills. This article
provides an overview of the benefits and challenges of a multilevel English
proficiency test and discusses the results of the multilevel English proficiency tests
conducted by the Agency for Assessment of Knowledge and Competences. The test
results are analyzed across different sections based on Classical test theory and
IRT.
Keywords: Multilevel proficiency test, IRT, Rasch model, difficulty, ability,
standard score, reliability

Introduction

English proficiency tests are widely A multilevel system of foreign

used to assess the language skills of language proficiency assessment was
non-native speakers of English. These developed and put into practice by
tests are used in educational and Assessment Agency (formerly known
workplace settings to determine as State Testing Center) in 2022, based
language proficiency levels and to on the decree of the Cabinet of
place test takers in appropriate Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan
language courses or job positions. A No. 73 of February 16, 2022. During
multilevel English proficiency test is a the months of March-December 2022,
test that assesses a test taker's English 11 exam sessions were organized and
language skills at different levels of more than 45 thousand test takers
proficiency. Multilevel testing is participated in these tests.
gaining more popularity in both Test results were analyzed using
academic and professional environ- Classical test theory and IRT. As the
ments since it provides a more results for listening and reading
comprehensive and detailed insight sections, latent ability scores based on
into the language proficiency of the the Rash model are reported in the
test taker. form of standard scores. As for

79
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023

speaking and writing, the responses off scores for different levels are given
are evaluated by human raters against in Table 1.
a pre-established scoring criteria. Cut-

Table 1
Distribution of cut-off scores

Level Score
C1 65-75
B2 51-64
B1 38-50
Below B1 1-37

1. Benefits and challenges of Multilevel tests

A multilevel proficiency test has understanding of language proficiency,

several benefits over a traditional multilevel testing can help teachers
English proficiency test. One benefit is and administrators identify areas of
a comprehensive assessment of strength and weakness in language
language skills. A traditional English instruction. This can help inform
proficiency test typically assesses curriculum development and instruct-
language skills at a single level of tional strategies, leading to better
proficiency, such as beginner, inter- outcomes for students [2].
mediate, or advanced. In contrast, a However, multilevel testing also
multilevel English proficiency test presents some challenges in terms of
assesses language skills at multiple test design and interpretation.
levels of proficiency, providing a One of the main challenges of
detailed picture of a test taker's multilevel testing is test design. Tests
language skills. This leads to more must be designed to accurately mea-
accurate evaluations of language pro- sure proficiency at each level, while
ficiency, which can help teachers and also allowing for comparisons across
administrators make more informed levels. This can be difficult to achieve,
decisions about placement and ins- as different levels may require dif-
truction [1]. ferent types of questions or tasks.
Multilevel testing can lead to Additionally, tests must be designed to
improved instruction and curriculum be fair and unbiased, regardless of the
development. By providing a nuanced test-taker's level of proficiency [2].

80
 BULLETIN 1/2023

Finally, multilevel testing presents allowing for comparisons across levels.

challenges in terms of interpretation. This can be difficult to achieve, as
Test results must be interpreted in a different levels may have different
way that accurately reflects the test- scoring criteria or cut-off scores [1].
taker's level of proficiency, while also

2. Equating process in the Rasch model

In order to ensure different Calibration involves estimating the
versions of the test yield similar results item parameters (i.e., difficulty and
and be comparable, a common scale discrimination) and the person para-
must be created. There are different meters (i.e., ability) separately for each
methods of creating a common scale test form or testing occasion [5]. This is
for different forms of tests in Classical typically done using maximum like-
and Modern test theories. One of them lihood estimation or Bayesian esti-
is equating, which is the process of mation methods.
linking test scores from different forms Linking involves establishing the
of a test or different testing occasions relationship between the test forms or
to create a common scale for score testing occasions by aligning the item
interpretation [3]. Equating is a crucial and person parameters on a common
process for educational and psycho- scale [6]. In this case, a test paper will
logical assessments, as it allows for the consist of non-repeating (unique) and
comparison of test scores across overlapping test items (Table 2). The
different groups of test takers or overlapping items helps to create a
different testing conditions. The Rasch common scale to ensure the paral-
model, a widely used item response lelism of test forms when calculating
theory model, provides a robust test results [7]. Evaluation involves
framework for equating test scores [4]. assessing the quality of the equating
Equating in the Rasch model results. This can be done using various
involves three main steps: (1) statistical methods, including the
calibrating the test forms or testing equating error, the standard error of
occasions, (2) linking the test forms or equating, and the equating stability
testing occasions to create a common coefficient.
scale, and (3) evaluating the equating
results.

81
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023

Table 2

Linking design sample for four test versions

Items\Versions V1 V2 V3 V4

6 6

Overlapping 6 6
items 6 6

6 6

Unique items 23 23 23 23

Total 35 35 35 35

3. Analysis of test performance

The reliability in the assessment of Reliability in Listening and Reading

writing and speaking skills requiring is ensured by taking certain measures,
human participation is constantly including following the test speci-
monitored using Routine double check fications and the linking design re-
method [8]. Pearson's correlation quirements, as well as monitoring the
coefficient is used in reliability quality of items using Classical test
analysis. theory and IRT.
Mean correlations for Writing and In order to improve the multi-level
Speaking are as follows: test system, cooperation with CITO
experts is underway. The validity and
Writing 0.843 reliability of the test results are being
Speaking 0.797 studied based on the Rash model [10].
Together with the CITO expert, the
results of the test conducted in March
A Pearson correlation coefficient
were analyzed (Graph 1) and it was
greater than 0.7 has been reported in
noted that the reliability of the test
the literature to indicate high inter-
results is high.
rater reliability [9].

82
 BULLETIN 1/2023

Graph 1. Relationship between cut-scores and test SEM

In this graph, the parabola lines bach's alpha coefficient ranges from 0
represent the standard error of the two to 1, with higher values indicating
versions of the test, and the dashed greater internal consistency reliability.
lines represent the recorded latent A Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.7 or
ability scores. As can be seen from the higher is generally considered accep-
graph, most of the scores are reported table for most purposes, while a
in the interval where the error value is coefficient of 0.8 or higher is con-
small. sidered good [11].
Moreover, internal consistency In the context of multilevel English
reliability is measured for each version proficiency tests, internal consistency
of the test. Internal consistency reliability can be used to assess the
reliability is a measure of the con- extent to which the different levels of
sistency with which an assessment tool the test measure the same underlying
or test measures a construct. It is a construct of English language pro-
statistical measure that assesses how ficiency. This can help ensure that the
consistently the items or questions test is measuring language proficiency
within a test measure the same consistently across different levels,
underlying construct or trait. and can provide evidence of the
One commonly used measure of validity of the test.
internal consistency reliability is Table 3 presents the Cronbach’s
Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Cron- alpha values for each version of the

83
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023

test, as well as the raw scores in R, a software environment for

corresponding to the cut-scores statistical computing and graphics
identified by Rasch model. The [12].
calculations are done using ltm packet
Table 3

Test performance statistics

Listening Reading
Version Cronbach's Passing score Cronbach's Passing score
alpha B1 B2 C1 alpha B1 B2 C1
22031 0.763 12 19 26 0.789 14 22 29
22032 0.812 12 20 27 0.843 10 18 27
22041 0.72 12 18 26 0.778 11 20 28
22042 0.84 9 16 25 0.832 11 19 28
22043 0.82 9 17 25 0.823 14 22 30
22051 0.81 11 19 28 0.796 8 16 25
22052 0.807 7 15 23 0.823 10 18 27
22053 0.723 11 20 28 0.766 9 18 27
22054 0.759 7 15 25 0.78 12 21 28
22061 0.804 8 16 25 0.823 11 19 28
22062 0.835 7 15 23 0.828 10 18 26
22063 0.839 10 18 27 0.817 7 15 24
22064 0.854 11 19 27 0.801 8 16 25
22065 0.829 8 15 24 0.829 11 19 28
22091 0.869 10 18 26 0.864 10 18 27
22092 0.858 10 18 26 0.873 11 20 28
22101 0.83 11 20 27 0.828 10 17 26
22102 0.858 11 19 27 0.787 10 18 26
22103 0.815 11 19 27 0.822 12 20 28
22104 0.841 13 22 30 0.834 12 20 29
22105 0.822 10 19 27 0.799 9 17 25
22111 0.755 11 18 25 0.757 10 17 25
22112 0.836 8 16 28 0.877 9 18 27

84
 BULLETIN 1/2023

22113 0.805 6 13 23 0.881 9 18 27

22114 0.848 9 17 25 0.843 9 18 27
22115 0.885 10 18 26 0.856 7 16 25
22121 0.818 10 19 27 0.779 6 14 24
22122 0.832 9 17 26 0.853 9 18 27
22123 0.881 12 20 28 0.821 11 19 28
22124 0.85 10 18 27 0.887 12 20 28
22125 0.799 8 14 22 0.794 10 17 25
22126 0.802 10 18 26 0.787 8 16 25
22127 0.762 8 15 23 0.745 7 15 24
22128 0.847 7 14 23 0.819 11 19 27
Mean 0.818 10 17 26 0.819 10 18 27

4. Analysis of test taker performance

The demographic data of the test third test taker is a male participant.
takers is shown in the following Most of the test takers are under 30
graphs. The data shows that every years old.

28

72

Male Female

Graph 2. Test takers by gender (percentage)

85
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023

3; 3%
15; 14%

45; 45%

38; 38%

under 20 21-30 31-40 over 40

Graph 3. Test takers by age group

The test taker performance for across gender, age and regions. Overall
sessions conducted between March performance results are shown in
and December in 2022 is analysed Table 4.

Table 4
Overall test taker performance

Number of
Level sertificates Percentage
issued

C1 3285 7.26
B2 21384 47.25
B1 15378 33.98
Below B1
5208 11.51
(Fail)

86
 BULLETIN 1/2023

Table 5

Test taker performance by gender (percentage)

Gender Below B1 B1 B2 C1
Male 17.19 37.94 39.22 5.65
Female 9.32 32.46 50.35 7.88

Table 6
Test taker performance by regions (percentage)
Region Below B1 B1 B2 C1
Karakalpak Republic 12.65 27.88 50.84 8.63
Andijan 11.99 32.74 49.15 6.12
Namangan 11.51 34.88 46.98 6.62
Fergana 8.97 37.32 47.39 6.32
Bukhara 6.86 36.59 48.65 7.90
Samarkand 13.17 34.65 45.48 6.70
Navoiy 10.49 40.81 44.09 4.61
Jizzakh 11.57 30.60 49.79 8.05
Sirdarya 9.52 34.69 49.48 6.31
Kashkadarya 11.66 36.24 46.86 5.24
Surkhandarya 10.41 34.68 48.58 6.32
Khorezm 7.55 31.65 51.59 9.21
Tashkent 16.71 29.81 44.33 9.15

Table 7
Test taker performance by age group (percentage)
Age group Below B1 B1 B2 C1
under 20 8.57 48.20 40.97 2.26
21-30 11.83 24.30 51.81 12.07
31-40 18.51 18.93 52.77 9.79
over 40 17.39 16.46 57.07 9.08

Table 8
Mean scores by gender
Gender Listening Reading Writing Speaking Overall score
Male 48.46 47.76 45.00 50.54 47.76
Female 50.25 49.94 50.86 53.77 51.23

87
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023

Table 9
Mean scores by region
Overall
Region Listening Reading Writing Speaking
score
Karakalpak Republic 50.48 50.25 49.52 52.67 50.77
Andijan 49.44 49.38 48.93 53.73 50.35
Namangan 48.95 49.08 49.61 52.96 50.06
Fergana 49.42 48.99 50.05 53.33 50.48
Bukhara 50.07 50.07 51.33 53.75 51.31
Samarkand 49.06 48.45 49.24 52.14 49.70
Navoiy 48.86 47.75 48.42 52.08 49.30
Jizzakh 49.92 50.01 49.85 52.85 50.69
Sirdarya 49.61 49.25 50.99 53.41 50.80
Kashkadarya 49.64 48.88 47.98 52.01 49.61
Surkhandarya 49.22 49.56 49.78 52.99 50.34
Khorezm 51.72 50.40 51.67 53.87 51.97
Tashkent 50.02 49.64 46.71 52.41 49.51
Mean 49.75 49.33 49.23 52.89 50.27

Table 10
Mean scores by age group
Overall
Age group Listening Reading Writing Speaking
score
under 20 47.64 46.61 48.30 51.60 48.63
21-30 52.03 52.22 50.25 54.00 52.04
31-40 50.31 50.18 49.14 53.65 50.56
over 40 49.93 49.51 50.69 54.71 50.97

The tables above show that female scores than the rest. Among regions, by
test takers performed better than male far the best results were received by
participants. In terms of age groups, test takers from Khorezm and the
test takers between 21-30 years of age Karakalpak Republic, while test takers
showed better performance than the from Kashkadarya and Navoiy regions
rest of the age groups, while the received the lowest scores in com-
youngest test takers received lower parison to other regions.

88
 BULLETIN 1/2023

Conclusion

Multilevel English proficiency opportunities for future research and

testing is an effective approach to development.
evaluating language skills across Multilevel English proficiency test
multiple levels. By providing more conducted by Assessment agency was
accurate evaluations of language designed using the latest accom-
proficiency, better placement of stu- plishments in classical and modern
dents in language programs, and test theories. The analysis of test
improved instruction and curriculum results show that the test results are
development, multilevel testing can reported on a single scale, which
help improve outcomes for students. makes it comparable across different
Multilevel English proficiency testing versions, and reliable enough to use for
is an evolving field, and there are many high stakes decisions in a local level.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Wobbe Zijlstra of CITO, Netherlands for his
exceptional support though online workshop training and Mirshod Ermamatov
of Scientific and Educational Practical Center under the Agency for Assessment of
Knowledge and Competences for his scientific advice on test analysis.

References

1. Brown, A. (2014). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.

Pearson Education.
2. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice:
Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford
University Press.
3. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking:
Methods and practices (3rd ed.). Springer.
4. Baker, F.B. (2001). The Basics of Item Response Theory, ERIC
Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. University of Maryland, College
Park, MD.
5. Han, K.T. (2009). IRTEQ: Windows application that implements IRT scaling
and equating [computer program]. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(6),
491-493.
6. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of
item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

89
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023
7. Ermamatov, M.Dj., Abbosov, A.A, & Baratov, A.A. (2022). Test
topshiriqlarini kalibrovkalash va qobiliyatlarni tenglashtirish. Axborotnoma, 3-
4/2022, 4-15.
8. Abbosov, A.A. (2022). Yozish ko‘nikmasini tekshirishda baholovchilar
o‘rtasidagi ishonchlilik. Axborotnoma, 1-2/2022, 12-17.
9. Maris, G., Bechger, T., Koops, J., & Partchev, I. (2018) dexter: Data
management and analysis of tests. URL: https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=dexter.
10. Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction: introduction to
psychometric design. London: Methuen.
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
12. Rizopoulos, D. (2006). ltm: An R package for Latent Variable Modelling
and Item, Response Theory Analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17, 1-15.

90
 BULLETIN 1/2023
INGLIZ TILI BO‘YICHA KO‘P DARAJALI TEST TIZIMI TAHLILI

A.A. Abbosov
O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy ta’lim, fan va innovatsiyalar vazirligi huzuridagi Bilim va
malakalarni baholash agentligi,
100084, Toshkent sh., Bog‘ishamol k., 12

Qisqacha mazmuni. Ko‘p darajali ingliz tilini bilish imtihoni test

topshiruvchining ingliz tilini bilish darajasini turli darajalarda baholaydigan
testdir. Ushbu turdagi testlar tobora ommalashib bormoqda, chunki u imtihon
topshiruvchining til ko‘nikmalarini yanada chuqurroq tushunish imkonini beradi.
Ushbu maqolada ko‘p darajali ingliz tilini bilish testining afzalliklari va
qiyinchiliklari haqida ma’lumot berilgan hamda Bilimni baholash agentligi
tomonidan o‘tkaziladigan ko‘p darajali test tizimining dastlabki natijalari tahlili
keltirilgan. Test natijalari ko‘nikmalar kesimida, klassik va zamonaviy test
nazariyalari asosida tahlil qilingan.
Kalit so‘zlar: Ko‘p darajali test tizimi, IRT, Rash modeli, qiyinlik darajasi,
qobiliyat, standart ballar, ishonchlilik.

91
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023
O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy ta’lim, fan va innovatsiyalar vazirligi
huzuridagi Bilim va malakalarni baholash agentligi “Axborotnoma” ilmiy-
uslubiy jurnali mualliflari uchun qoidalar

I. Mavzular va chop etish shakllari

O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy amaliy muammolarga bag‘ishlangan
ta’lim, fan va innovatsiyalar vazirligi tahliliy maqolalar ham chop etilishi
huzuridagi Bilim va malakalarni mumkin (40 betdan ortiq bo‘lmagan,
baholash agentligining “Axborotnoma” 14 pt Cambria shriftida). Mualliflar
ilmiy-uslubiy jurnali pedagogik oldindan tahririyatga tahliliy maqola
o‘lchovlarga oid nazariy va amaliy mavzusi qamrovining qisqacha maz-
maqolalarni chop etadi. Testologiya munini (1 betdan ortiq bo‘lmagan)
bo‘yicha bajarilgan ishlarga alohida berib, kelishib olishi kerak.
diqqat qaratiladi. Maqolaning umumiy Taqdim etilgan qo‘lyozma mat-
hajmi 15 betdan oshmasligi lozim (14 nida bitta masalaga bag‘ishlangan
pt Cambria shriftida). materialni asoslanmagan holda bir
Yetarlicha ilmiy yangilikka ega necha maqolaga bo‘lishdan va
bo‘lgan va tezda nashr qilinishi lozim haddan tashqari o‘z-o‘ziga havola
bo‘lgan materiallar muharrirga xat qilishdan qochish kerak.
ko‘rinishida (4 betdan ortiq bo‘l- Havola qilingan adabiyotlar
magan, 14 pt Cambria shriftida) ro‘yxatida asosan oxirgi 5-10 yilda
taqdim etiladi. chop etilgan manbalar ko‘rsatilgan
Avval chop etilgan maqolani bo‘lishi kerak. Ancha eski ada-
to‘ldiruvchi yoki tuzatuvchi, lekin to‘liq biyotlarga eng zarur holatlarda havola
maqola sifatida chop etish talab qilinadi.
qilinmaydigan materiallar qisqa Jurnal tahririyati maqolani
xabarlar (6 betdan ortiq bo‘lmagan, qisqartirish va materiallarni birlash-
14 pt Cambria shriftida) ko‘rinishida tirish, shuningdek, materialni hajmiga
nashr qilinadi. bog‘liq bo‘lmagan holda qisqartirish
Jurnalda pedagogik o‘lchovlarga huquqini o‘zida qoldiradi.
oid eng muhim va dolzarb nazariy va

II.Qo‘lyozmani rasmiylashtirish va uni

tahririyatga taqdim etish
Maqola qo‘lyozmasi, ko‘rgazmali (uzluksiz raqamlangan holda)
materiallari (jadvallar, chizmalar va tahririyatda qabul qilinadi
rasmlar) bilan birgalikda bitta (info_im@uzbmb.uz elektron manzil
hajmdagi faylda elektron shaklda bo‘yicha).

92
 BULLETIN 1/2023
Mualliflar maqola qo‘lyozmasi 3. Amaliy qismi.
bilan birga qo‘lyozma avval boshqa
4. Xulosa.
jurnalda chop etilmaganligi va chop
etish uchun navbatda turmaganligini 5. Tashakkurnoma (majburiy
tasdiqlovchi kafolat xatini taqdim emas).
etishi kerak. 6. Moliyaviy manbasi (bo‘lsa).
Mualliflar 7 ish kunida maqola
qo‘lyozmasi kelib tushganligi haqida 7. Manfaatlar to‘qnashuvi.
xabardor qilinadi. 8. Adabiyotlar ro‘yxati.
Nazariy, amaliy, tahliliy maqo-
9. Abstract (o‘zbek va ingliz
lalarni, muharrirga xat va qisqa
tillarida).
xabarlarni rasmiylashtirishda quyida-
gi tartibga rioya qilish kerak: 2. Maqola nomi (yuqori darajada
1. Qo‘lyozma matni (mavzusi, ma’lumotli bo‘lishi, ishning aniq
mualliflar familiyasi va ismi sharifi, mazmunini o‘zida aks ettirishi va kalit
mualliflar ish joyi, qisqacha mazmuni so‘zlari bo‘lishi, yo‘nalishni va tad-
va kalit so‘zlar bilan) 14 keglda, qiqotning asosiy natijalarini ifodalashi
1,5 oraliqda (Cambria shriftida), kerak. Agarda maqola navbatdagi
barcha tomonlaridan 2 sm hoshiya xabar bo‘ladigan bo‘lsa, unda oldingi
qoldirgan holda tayyorlanadi. Asosiy xabarni izohdava adabiyotlar ro‘y-
matn (mavzu va kichik mavzular xatida birinchi havolada berish). Bosh
nomidan tashqari) kengligi bo‘yicha harfda, yarimto‘q rangda, o‘rtaga
tekislangan bo‘lishi kerak. Matn tekislangan holda (o‘zbek va ingliz
muharriri Microsoft Office Word (*.rtf (oxirida) tilida) beriladi.
formatda) foydalanilgan holda 3. Mualliflarning familyasi va
tayyorlanadi. ismi sharifi (birinchi muallifning
Maqola qo‘lyozmasida bo‘limlar familiyasi va ismi sharifi oldidan
tartibi: mualliflik huquqi belgisi va qo‘l-
1. Kirish. yozmaning jurnalga taqdim etilgan yil
qayd etiladi. Masalan:
2. Natijalar va muhokama.
© 2019-y. Toshmatov Z.Z., Eshmatov A.A., Normatov M.D.
va shunga o‘xshash. Yozishmaga 4. Ish bajarilgan tashkilot va
mas’ul bo‘lgan muallif familiyasi oldiga idoraning to‘liq nomi, (agar
yulduzcha belgisi qo‘yiladi *). Ya- tashkilotlar bir nechta bo‘lsa, qaysi
rimto‘q rangdagi harfda, o‘rtaga muallif qaysi tashkilotda ishlashi
tekislangan holda (o‘zbek va ingliz ko‘rsatiladi). Mualliflarning ish joyi
(oxirida) tilida) beriladi. kichik arab raqami bilan belgilanib,

93
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023
tashkilot nomi oldiga qo‘yiladi,
masalan,
1)O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy ta’lim, fan va innovatsiyalar vazirligi huzuridagi

Bilim va malakalarni baholash agentligi, 100214, O‘zbekiston Respublikasi,

Toshkent sh., Bog‘ishamol k., 12.

Og‘ishgan harfda va o‘rtaga tekis- 8. Umumiy qismida mavzuga oid

langan holda (o‘zbek va ingliz (oxirida) qisqacha oldin e’lon qilingan ishlarning
tilida) beriladi. tanqidiy tahlili, ishning maqsad va
5. Yozishmalar uchun muallifning vazifalari, tadqiqot natijalarining mu-
elektron manzili *e-mail: hokamasi beriladi.
toshmatov1972@dtm.uz shaklida be- Ishning maqsadi aniq ko‘r-
riladi. Og‘ishgan harfda va o‘rtaga satilgan bo‘lishi kerak, “...qiziq bo‘-
tekislangan holda beriladi. lardi...”, “...qiziqtirar edi...” ko‘rinish-
6. Kalit so‘zlar (5 tadan 10 dagi jumlalar ishlatilishiga mutlaqo
tagacha) bo‘ladi, masalan: Kalit yo‘l qo‘yilmaydi. Muallif tomonidan
so‘zlar: pedagogik o‘lchovlar, tes- qayd etilgan har bir holat o‘z amaliy
tologiya, validlik, ishonchlilik, ishi (hisob-kitob) bilan tasdiqlanishi
meyo’riy-yo‘naltirilgan. Kichik harfda yoki adabiyotga havola qilinishi kerak.
va chapga tekislangan holda (o‘zbek va 9. Amaliy tajriba qismida amaliy
ingliz (oxirida) tilida) beriladi. tajribani o‘tkazish tavsifi va natijalari
7. Qisqacha mazmunda (400- haqidagi ma’lumotlar beriladi.
500 belgilar), mazmunni tashkil Qisqacha xabar va muharrirga
etuvchi asosiy usullar va mual- xatda amaliy tajriba qismi alohida
liflarning tadqiqot natijalari bo‘yicha berilmaydi.
aniq xulosalari beriladi. Qisqacha 10. Havola qilingan adabi-
mazmunda qisqartmalar berish, shartli yotlar ro‘yxati quyida keltirilgan
belgilashlar, raqamli bog‘lanishlar va namuna ko‘rinishida rasmiylashtiri-
adabiyotlarga havola berishga yo‘l ladi. Barcha mualliflarning familyasi va
qo‘yilmaydi. Kichik harfda va matn ismi sharifi keltiriladi (“va b.”
kengligi bo‘yicha tekislangan holda qisqartirishlarga yo‘l qo‘yilmaydi).
(o‘zbek va ingliz (oxirida) tilida)
beriladi.
Jurnallardagi maqolalarga:
1. Toshmatov N.E. ... O‘zR VM huzuridagi DTM Axborotnomasi. 2018-yil,
1-son, 78-88-betlar.
Dissertatsiya va avtoreferatlarga:
1. Toshmatov E.N. ... dis. P.f.d. Toshkent. 2018-yil.

94
 BULLETIN 1/2023
2. Eshmatov T.M. ... Avtoref. Dis. P.f.n. Toshkent. 2016-yil..

11. Abstract – ingliz tilida 7-band. 13. Moliyaviy manba qismida

12. Tashakkurnoma qismida grantlar va boshqa moliyaviy
foydali muhokama va munozara, yordamlar haqidagi malumotlar
hamkasblarga va taqrizchiga min- keltiriladi. Tashkilot nomi va homiy
natdorlik haqidagi ma’lumotlar tashkilot nomi qisqartirilmasdan to‘liq
keltiriladi. Shuningdek, matnni kom- keltiriladi.
pyuterda terishga yordam bergan- 14. Manfaatlar to‘qnashuvi
larga, rasm va chizmalar chizishda qismida mualliflar manfaatlar
yordam berganlarga ham minnat- to‘qnashuvi yo‘qligi haqida yozishi
dorchilik bildirish mumkin. shart.

III. Maqolaning chop etishga qabul qilinganligi haqidagi ma’lumot

Maqolaning nashrdan chiqishi- Unda faqat qabul qilingan yili
gacha va uning jurnal tahririyati ko‘rsatiladi, masalan, “... maqola
bazasiga kelgandan keyin (mual- barcha qabul bosqichlaridan o‘tdi va
lifning so‘roviga ko‘ra) maqolaning 2023-yilda chop etilish uchun qabul
nashrga qabul qilinganligi haqida qilindi”.
ma’lumotnoma berilishi mumkin.

VI. Qo‘lyozmaning tahririyatdan o‘tish tartibi

Qo‘lyozma matni olingandan Muallifga taqrizchi e’tirozlari
keyin (va bu haqida muallifga xabar bilan qo‘lyozmaga ikkita shartnoma
berilgandan keyin) u taqrizchiga ko‘rib blanki (litsenziya shartnomasi va
chiqish uchun yuboriladi (dastlabki mualliflik huquqini berish haqidagi
taqriz). Jurnal tartibiga ko‘ra dastlabki shartnoma) yuboriladi. Muallif shart-
tahrirga 14 ish kunigacha beriladi. nomani to‘ldiradi, imzolaydi va
Jurnal tahririyati bir tomonlama matnning qayta ishlangan shakli bilan
taqrizdan foydalanib tahririyat birga elektron shaklda (*.pdf shaklida)
a’zolaridan biriga (single-blind – yuboradi. Imzolanmagan shartnoma-
taqrizchi muallifni biladi, muallif siz qo‘lyozmani jurnalning tayyorlana-
taqrizchi kimligini bilmaydi) beradi. yotgan soniga berib bo‘lmaydi.
Taqrizchining e’tirozlari olingandan Qayta ishlangan qo‘lyozma matni
keyin qo‘lyozma dastlabki qayta olinganidan so‘ng u qayta taqrizga
ishlashga yuboriladi (7 kalendar yuboriladi (qayta taqriz muddati 14 ish
kunigacha). kunigacha). Taqrizchi qo‘lyozma mat-
nini ko‘rib chiqadi va chop

95
AXBOROTNOMA 1/2023
etish/qaytadan qayta ishlash yoki 4) zamonaviy tadqiqot darajasiga
qo‘lyozmani chop etishni rad etish mos kelmasa;
haqida xulosa beradi. 5) xulosalar yetarli darajada
Taqriz olish bosqichidan keyin adabiyotlar yoki amaliy tajriba
qo‘lyozma jurnal ilmiy muharririga materiallari bilan asoslanmagan bo‘lsa;
yuboriladi. Ilmiy muharrir e’tirozlar 6) keltirilgan natijalar muallif yoki
tayyorlaydi, o‘zgarishlar kiritadi va boshqa tadqiqotchilar tomonidan
ularni muallif bilan kelishadi. yetarlicha to‘liq maqola sifatida chop
Mualliflar tomonidan maqola uzrli etilgan bo‘lsa;
sababsiz 1 oydan ko‘p muddatga 7) maqolaning ilmiy-uslubiy sifati
kechiktirilsa, dastlabki kelib tushgan va/yoki uning rasmiylashtirilishi
sanasi saqlanmaydi. qoniqarsiz bo‘lsa, “mualliflar uchun
Tahririyat jamoasi maqolani chop qoidalar”ga rioya qilinmasdan ras-
etishni rad etish huquqini quyidagi miylashtirilgan bo‘lsa;
hollarda o‘zida qoldiradi: 8) muallif tomonidan ikki marta
1) jurnal sohasiga mos kelmasa; qayta ishlanib tahririyatga kelgan
2) olingan natijalar ahamiyatlili- variantda taqrizchining barcha
gining yetarli emasligi; e’tirozlari (mos ravishda asoslarsiz)
3) tadqiqotning maqsad va vazi- inobatga olinmagan bo‘lsa.
falari aniq shakllantirilmaganda;

96