The purpose of this study is to examine the written response instruments used in postgraduate theses completed in the field of special education in Turkey between 2015 and 2018 and explore the psychometric profiles of these instruments. In the study, a total of 137 master's theses and 37 dissertations were reviewed using the Data Collection Instrument Review Form. Categorical and frequency analyses were used in the analysis of the data. Also, the relevant categories were discussed by citing remarkable examples of errors or deficiencies. According to the research findings, a total of 387 written response instruments were used in the theses reviewed. Most of the written response instruments were developed by the researchers themselves and of these instruments, the most frequently used were the personal information forms and scales. In the theses, most of the written response instruments were not introduced or only partly introduced and the validity and reliability of these instruments were either not reported or only partly reported. The results of the research showed that there were crucial deficiencies and errors in reporting the basic methodological information about the written response instruments used in the theses and this situation was repeated in the theses. In parallel with the results of the research, the related problems and their causes were discussed, and suggestions offered.

中文翻译：

---

特殊教育研究生论文中使用书面回应工具的心理计量学特征

这项研究的目的是研究2015年至2018年间在土耳其特殊教育领域完成的研究生论文中使用的书面回答工具，并探讨这些工具的心理计量学特征。在研究中，使用“数据收集工具审阅表”审阅了总共137篇硕士论文和37篇论文。分类和频率分析用于数据分析。此外，通过列举错误或缺陷的杰出示例来讨论相关类别。根据研究结果，总共使用了387份书面答卷。大多数书面答复工具是由研究人员自己开发的，在这些工具中，最常用的是个人信息形式和量表。在论文中，大多数书面答复工具没有被引入或仅被部分引入，而这些工具的有效性和可靠性没有被报告或仅被部分报告。研究结果表明，在报告有关论文中使用的书面回答工具的基本方法学信息方面存在严重的缺陷和错误，并且在论文中重复了这种情况。在研究结果的同时，讨论了相关问题及其成因，并提出了建议。研究结果表明，在报告有关论文中使用的书面回答工具的基本方法学信息方面存在严重的缺陷和错误，并且在论文中重复了这种情况。在研究结果的同时，讨论了相关问题及其成因，并提出了建议。研究结果表明，在报告有关论文中使用的书面回答工具的基本方法学信息方面存在严重的缺陷和错误，并且在论文中重复了这种情况。在研究结果的同时，讨论了相关问题及其成因，并提出了建议。