Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:04:25.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 7 - The Changing Landscape of Technology-Enhanced Test Administration

from Part III - Advances, Trends, and Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2017

By
Tracy M. Kantrowitz  and
Sara L. Gutierrez
Edited by
John C. Scott ,
Dave Bartram  and
Douglas H. Reynolds
John C. Scott
Affiliation:
APT Metrics
Dave Bartram
Affiliation:
CEB-SHL
Douglas H. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Development Dimensions International
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Next Generation Technology-Enhanced Assessment
Global Perspectives on Occupational and Workplace Testing
 , pp. 193 - 216
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, W., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2010). The magnitude and extent of cheating and response distortion effects on unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W., Jr., Doverspike, D., Munoz, G. J., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2014). The use of mobile devices in high-stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 113–123.Google Scholar
ATP Test Security Survey Report. (2012). Association of Test Publishers.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Grauer, E., & Davis, J. (2006). Unproctored Internet testing: Important questions and empirical answers. In J. C. Beaty (Chair), Unproctored Internet testing: What do the data say? Practitioner forum conducted at the 21st annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Dawson, C. R., Fallaw, S. S., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2009). Recovering the scientist-practitioner model: How IOs should respond to UIT. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 58–63.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Nye, C., Borneman, M., Kantrowitz, T. M., Drasgow, F., & Grauer, E. (2011). Proctored versus unproctored Internet tests: Are unproctored tests as predictive of job performance? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brault, M. W. (2010). Americans With Disabilities: 2010. Current Population Reports, 70-117, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2008. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf.Google Scholar
Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Delgado, K., Kung, M. C., & O’Connell, M. S. (2009). Differences between proctored and unproctored groups on management potential measure. Paper presented at the 24th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Do, B., Shepherd, W. J., & Drasgow, F. (2005). Measurement equivalence across proctored versus unproctored testing with job incumbents. Paper presented at the 20th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Dolan, B. (2015). Pew: 64 Percent of US adults own a smartphone now. Retrieved from http://mobihealthnews.com/42077/pew-64-percent-of-us-adults-own-a-smartphone-now (accessed December 21, 2015).Google Scholar
Doverspike, D., Arthur, W. Jr., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2012). Mobile mania: Impact of device type on remotely delivered assessments. In J. C. Scott (Chair), Chasing the tortoise: Zeno’s paradox in technology-based assessment. Symposium presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., Luecht, R. M., & Bennett, R. (2006). Technology and testing. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 471–516). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Fallaw, S., & Kantrowitz, T.M. (2011). Global assessment trends report. Technical Report. Alpharetta, GA, SHL.Google Scholar
Fallaw, S., Kantrowitz, T. M., & Dawson, C. R. (2012). Global assessment trends report. Technical Report. Alpharetta, GA: SHL.Google Scholar
Fetzer, M. (2009, April). Validity and utility of computer adaptive testing in personnel selection. Symposium presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, M., & Grelle, D. (2010). PreVisor ConVerge: The best practice for unproctored/unsupervised Internet testing. White paper. Alpharetta, GA: SHL.Google Scholar
Fursman, P. M., & Tuzinski, K. A. (2015, April). Reactions to mobile testing from the perspective of job applicants. Paper presented at the 30th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Gartner (2015). Retrieved from www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3088221 (accessed December 20, 2015).Google Scholar
Golubovich, J., & Boyce, A. (2013). Hiring tests: Trends in mobile test usage. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: Where are we now? Symposium presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Guo, J., Tay, L. & Drasgow, F. (2009). Conspiracies and test compromise: An evaluation of the resistance of test systems to small-scale cheating. International Journal of Testing, 9, 283–309.Google Scholar
Grelle, D., Gutierrez, S. L., & Fetzer, M. S. (2010). Validity of CAT in personnel selection. Paper presented at the International Association of Computer Adaptive Testing (IACAT) Conference, Arnhem, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, S. L. (2011). Perceptions of fairness and opportunity to perform on CAT in personnel selection. Paper presented at the International Association of Computer Adaptive Testing Conference, Pacific Grove, CA.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, S. L. & Meyer, J. M. (2014). The mobile revolution: Measurement equivalence and mobile device administration. In T. Kantrowitz & C. M. Reddock (Chairs), Shaping the future of mobile assessment: Research and practice update. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, S. L., Grelle, D., & Borneman, M. (2009). Computer adaptive measures of cognitive ability: Validity and utility. In M. S. Fetzer (Chair), Validity and utility of computer adaptive testing in personnel selection. Symposium conducted at the 24th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, S. L, Meyer, J. M., & Fursman, P. (2015, April). What exactly drives positive reactions to mobile device administration? In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: The next chapter. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Hausknecht, J., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Cornell University ILR School, ILR Collection.Google Scholar
Illingworth, J., Morelli, N., Scott, J. C., & Boyd, S. (2014). Internet-based, unproctored assessments on mobile and non-mobile devices: Usage, measurement equivalence, and outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 25–34.Google Scholar
Impelman, K. (2013). Mobile assessment: Who’s doing it and how it impacts selection. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: Where are we now? Symposium presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
International Testing Commission. (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143–171.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, T. M. (2014). Global assessment trends report. Technical report. Alpharetta, GA: CEB.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, T. M., & Dainis, A. (2015). How secure are unproctored pre-employment tests? Analysis of inconsistent test scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 605–616.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, T. M., & Gutierrez, S. (2013). The security of employment testing: Practices that keep pace with evolving organizational demands and technology innovations. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50, 33–42.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, T. M., Fetzer, M. S., & Dawson, C. R. (2011). Computer adaptive testing (CAT): A faster, smarter, and more secure approach to pre-employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 227–232.Google Scholar
King, D., Ryan, A. M., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2014). Mobile and PC delivered assessments: Comparison of scores and reactions. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
King, D., Ryan, A. M., Kantrowitz, T. M., Grelle, G., & Dainis, A. (2015). Mobile Internet testing: An analysis of equivalence, individual differences, and reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(4), 382-394.Google Scholar
Kinney, T. B., Lawrence, A., & Change, L. (2014). Understanding the mobile experience: Data across device and industry. In T. Kantrowitz & C. M. Reddock (Chairs), Shaping the future of mobile assessment: Research and practice update. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Kluemper, D. H., & Rosen, P. A. (2009). Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking web sites. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 567–580.Google Scholar
Landers, R. N., Reddock, C.M., Cavanaugh, K.J., & Proaps, A.B. (2014). Talent assessment using mobile devices. Paper presented in T. Kantrowitz (Chair) Shaping the future of mobile assessment: Research and practice update. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A., Wasko, L., Delgado, K., Kinney, T., & Wolf, D. (2013). Does mobile assessment administration impact psychological measurement? In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: Where are we now? Symposium presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Burke, E. (2011). Dealing with the threats inherent in unproctored Internet testing of cognitive ability: Results from a large-scale operational test program. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 817–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715–738.Google Scholar
Makransky, G., & Glas, C. (2011). Unproctored Internet test verification: Using adaptive confirmation testing. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 608–630.Google Scholar
Mather, T. (2015). Retrieved from www.ljresearch.co.uk/smartwatch-unlikely-to-cause-the-next-mobile-revolution/.Google Scholar
Maynes, D. (2012). Busted! Tricks can be played by anti-cheaters too. Retrieved from www.caveon.com/busted-tricks-can-be-played-by-anti-cheaters-too/ (accessed April 24, 2014).Google Scholar
McClure, T.K., & Boyce, A. S. (2015). Selection testing: An updated look at trends in mobile device usage. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: The next chapter. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449–458.Google Scholar
Milanesi, C. (2015). Retrieved from www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/US-Smartwatch-Market-Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time-Yet.Google Scholar
Moclaire, C., Middleton, E., Fox, B., Foster, C., & Prettyman, T. (2012). Balancing security and efficiency in limited-size computer adaptive test libraries. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
Morelli, N. A., Mahan, R. P., & Illingworth, A. J. (2014). Establishing the measurement equivalence of online selection assessments delivered on mobile versus non mobile devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morelli, N. A., Illingworth, A. J., Scott, J. C., & Lance, C. E. (2012). Are Internet-based, unproctored assessments on mobile and non-mobile devices equivalent? In J. C. Scott (Chair), Chasing the tortoise: Zeno’s paradox in technology-based assessment. Symposium presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Nye, C. D., Do, B. R., Drasgow, F., & Fine, S. (2008). Two-step testing in employee selection: Is score inflation a problem? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 112–120.Google Scholar
Pace, V., & Borman, W. (2006). The use of warnings to discourage faking on non-cognitive inventories. In M. Peterson and R. Griffith (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior. Information Age Publishing. pp. 281–302.Google Scholar
Parker, B. N., & Meade, A. (2015). Smartphones in selection: Exploring measurement invariance using item response theory. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: The next chapter. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Pearlman, K. (2009). Unproctored Internet testing: Practical, legal, and ethical concerns. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 14–19.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. J., McLellan, R. A., Kantrowitz, T. M., Houston, J. S., & Borman, W. C. (2009). Criterion-related validity of an innovative CAT-based personality measure. Proceedings from the GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.Google Scholar
Smittle, P. (1993). Computer adaptive testing: A new era. Journal of Development Education, 17, 8–10.Google Scholar
Stogner, J. M., Miller, B. L., & Marcum, C. D. (2013). Learning to e-cheat: A criminological test of Internet facilitated academic cheating. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24, 175–199.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. (2014). The power has shifted to the candidate, so current recruiting practices will stop working. Retrieved from www.eremedia.com/ere/the-power-has-shifted-to-the-candidate-so-current-recruiting-practices-will-stop-working/.Google Scholar
Templer, K. J., & Lange, S. R. (2008). Internet testing: Equivalence between proctored lab and unproctored field settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1216–1228.Google Scholar
Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 2–10.Google Scholar
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lanivich, S. E., Roth, P. L., & Junco, E. (2013). Social media for selection: Validity and adverse impact potential for a Facebook-based assessment. Journal of Management.Google Scholar
Whitley, B. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.Google Scholar
Wright, N. A., Meade, A. W., & Gutierrez, S. L. (2014). Using invariance to examine cheating in unproctored ability tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×