This study investigated the effect of several different modes of test administration on scores and completion times. In Experiment 1, paper-based assessment was compared to computer-based assessment. Undergraduates completed the computer-based assessment faster than the paper-based assessment, with no difference in scores. Experiment 2 assessed three different computer interfaces that provided students various levels of flexibility to change and review answers. No difference in scores was observed among the three modes, but students completed the least-flexible mode faster than the other two modes. It appears that less flexible test modes are faster and do not result in poorer performance than more flexible modes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BocijC.GreasleyA. (1999). Can computer-based testing achieve quality and efficiency in assessment?International Journal of Educational Technology, 1, nl. Available: http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n1/bocij/index.html.
2.
BugbeeA. C.Jr.BerntF. M. (1990). Testing by computer: Findings in six years of use 1982–1988. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23, 87–101.
3.
ClarianaR.WallaceP. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: Key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 593–602.
4.
DeAngelisS. (2000). Equivalency of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing. Journal of Allied Health, 29, 161–164.
5.
DimockP. H. (1991). The effects of format differences and computer experience on performance and anxiety on a computer-administered test. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 24(3), 119–127.
6.
FredericoP. A. (1989). Computer-based and paper-based measurement of recognition performance. (Navy Personnel Research and Development Center Report No. NPRDC-TR-89-7). San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED306308.)
7.
GreaudV. A.GreenB. F. (1986). Equivalence of conventional and computer presentation of speed tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 23–34.
8.
InouyeD. K.BundersonC. V. (1986). Four generations of computerized test administration. Machine-Mediated Learning, 1, 355–371.
9.
KrugerJ.WirtzD.MillerD. T. (in review). Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
10.
LeeJ.MorenoK. E.SympsonJ. B. (1986). The effects of mode of test administration on test performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 467–473.
11.
MasonB. J.PatryM.BernsteinD. J. (2001). An examination of the equivalence between non-adaptive computer-based and traditional testing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 29–39.
12.
MazzeoJ.DruesneB.RaffieldP. C.CheckettsK. T.MuelsteinA. (1991). Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil scores for two CLEP general examinations. College Board Report No. 91-5. New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED344902).
13.
MeadA. D.DrasgowF. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449–458.
14.
MillsC. N.StockingM. L. (1996). Practical issues in large-scale computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 287–304.
15.
MuellerD. J.WasserV. (1977). Implications of changing answers on objective test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 4, 9–13.
16.
NeumanG.BaydounR. (1998). Computerization of paper-and-pencil tests: When are they equivalent?Applied Psychological Measurement22, 71–83.
17.
OlsenJ. B.MaynesD. D.SlawsonD.HoK. (1989). Comparison of paper-administered, computer-administered and computerized adaptive achievement tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 311–326.
18.
PomplunM.FreyS.BeckerD. F. (2002). The score equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 337–354.
19.
RussellM. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 20.
20.
SchwarzS. P.McMorrisR. F.DeMersL. P. (1991). Reasons for changing answers: An evaluation using personal interviews. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 163–171.
21.
SprayJ. A.AckermanT. A.ReckaseM. D.CarlsonJ. E. (1989). Effect of the medium of item presentation on examinee performance and item characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 261–271.
22.
TrotterA. (2001). Testing firms see future market in online assessment. Education Week on the Web, 20(4), 6.
23.
U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology. (NCES 2000-102).
24.
VispoelW. P. (1998). Reviewing and changing answers on computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 328–345.
25.
WardT. J.Jr.HooperS. R.HannafinK. M. (1989). The effect of computerized tests on the performance and attitudes of college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 327–333.
26.
WeinbergA. (2001). Comparaison de deux versions d'une test de classement: Version papier-crayon et version informatisee [Comparison of two versions of a placement test: Paper-pencil version and computer-based version]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 607–627.
27.
ZandvlietD.FarragherP. (1997). A comparison of computer-administered and written tests. Journal of Research on Computers in Education, 29, 423–439.
