Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:37:15.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Internet Alternatives to Traditional Proctored Testing: Where Are We Now?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Nancy T. Tippins
Nancy T. Tippins*
Affiliation:
Valtera Corporation
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Valtera Corporation, 301 N Main St., Suite 1103, Greenville, SC 29601-2187
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Early in 2006, my colleagues and I published an article on unproctored Internet testing (UIT) in employment settings (Tippins et al., 2006). The purpose of that article was to identify the issues surrounding UIT and the ways in which those issues might be resolved. The panel of experts addressed a number of important questions about (a) the uses and applications of UIT and (b) the major issues and known problems associated with UIT, including test security, examinee identification, cheating, ethical use of tests, subgroup and cultural issues, standardization, and context effects. In addition, the panelists attempted to predict the future of UIT, highlight the research needed to facilitate UIT and provide advice to practitioners contemplating UIT. In the present article, “UIT” is used to refer to Internet-based testing completed by a candidate without a traditional human proctor. Thus, nontraditional forms of or alternatives to proctoring may be in place, such as quantitative analyses of response patterns, the use of video cameras, or follow-up testing with traditional proctoring.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 2 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

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

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.Google Scholar
International Test Commission. (2001). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143–172.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.Google Scholar
Tippins, N. T., Beatty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O., et al. (2006). Unproctored Internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59, 189–225.10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00909.xGoogle Scholar