Equivalency of test versions is often assumed by counselors and evaluators. This study examined two versions, paper–pencil and computer based, of the Driver Risk Inventory, a DUI/DWI (driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated) risk assessment. An overview of computer-based testing and standards for equivalency is also provided. Results of the study confirmed reliability, validity, and equivalency of the versions.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. (2007). Driver Risk Inventory–II (DRI-II): Objective and accurate DUI/DWI offender assessment. Phoenix, AZ: Author.
5.
BishopN. J. (2011a). Predicting multiple DUI offenders using the Florida DRI. Substance Use and Misuse, 46, 696–703.
6.
BishopN. J. (2011b). Predicting rapid DUI recidivism using the Driver Risk Inventory on a state-wide sample of Floridian DUI offenders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118, 423–429.
7.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8.
ButcherJ. N.PerryJ.HahnJ. (2004). Computers in clinical assessment: Historical developments, present status, and future challenges. Journal of Clinical Counseling, 60, 331–345.
9.
ChangI.GregoryC.LaphamS. C. (2002). Review of screening instruments and procedures for evaluating DWI offenders. Washington DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
10.
CribbieR. A.GrumanJ. A.Arpin-CribbieC. A. (2004). Recommendations for applying tests of equivalence. Journal of Clinical Counseling, 60, 1–10. doi:10.1002/jclp.10217
11.
DegiorgioL.LindemanH. (2013). Stress coping abilities and motivation for treatment among DUI recidivists. Journal of Community Corrections, 12(3), 5–9.
12.
DeVonH. A.BlockM. E.Moyle-WrightP.ErnstD. M.HaydenS. J.LazzaraD. J.. . . Kostas-PolstonE. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39, 155–164.
FliegeH.BeckerJ.WalterO. B.RoseM.BjornerJ. B.KlappB. F. (2009). Evaluation of a computer-adaptive test for the assessment of depression (D-CAT) in clinical application. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 18, 23–26. doi:10.1002/mpr.274
15.
GarbH. N. (2007). Computer-administered interviews and rating scales. Psychological Assessment, 19, 4–13. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.4
16.
GreeneR. L. (2011). Some considerations for enhancing psychological assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 198–203. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.558879
17.
IversonG. L.BrooksB. L.AshtonV. L.JohnsonL. G.GualtieriC. T. (2009). Does familiarity with computers affect computerized neuropsychological test performance?Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neurocounseling, 31, 594–604. doi:10.1080/13803390802372125
18.
LaceyJ. H.JonesR. K.WiliszowskiC. H. (1999). Validation of Problem Drinking Screening Instruments for DWI Offenders (Technical Report DOT HS 808 881).Washington DC: National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration.
19.
LeshowitzB.MeyersJ.M. (1996). Application of decision theory to DUI assessment. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 20, 1148–1152.
20.
LewisI.WatsonB.WhiteK. M. (2009). Internet versus paper-and-pencil survey methods in psychological experiments: Equivalence testing of participants responses to health-related messages. Australian Journal of Counseling, 61, 107–116. doi:10.1080/00049530802105865
21.
MeadA. D.DrasgowF. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449–458.
22.
MilfontT. L.FischerR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–121.
PopkinC. L.KannenbergC. H.LaceyJ. H.WallerF. F. (1988). Assessment of classification instruments designed to detect alcohol abuse (DOT HS 807 475). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
25.
RogersJ. L.HowardK. I.VesseyJ. T. (1993). Using significance tests to evaluate equivalence between two experimental groups. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 553–565.
26.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
27.
ZitnyP.HalamaP.JelinekM.KvetonP. (2012). Validity of cognitive ability tests-Comparison of computerized adaptive testing with paper and pencil and computer-based forms of administration. Studia Psychologica, 54, 181–194.
