Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T21:54:06.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UIT or Not UIT? That Is Not the Only Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Douglas H. Reynolds ,
Laurie E. Wasko ,
Evan F. Sinar ,
Patrick H. Raymark  and
Joseph A. Jones
Douglas H. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Development Dimensions International
Laurie E. Wasko
Affiliation:
Development Dimensions International
Evan F. Sinar
Affiliation:
Development Dimensions International
Patrick H. Raymark
Affiliation:
Clemson University
Joseph A. Jones
Affiliation:
Development Dimensions International
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Development Dimensions International, 1225 Washington Pike, Bridgeville, PA 15017
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 52 - 57
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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, Clemson University.

References

Arthur, W. A., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2009). Unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality: Magnitude of cheating and response distortion. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 39–45.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2009). The International Test Commission guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 11–13.Google Scholar
Burke, E. (2009). Preserving the integrity of online testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 35–38.Google Scholar
Foster, D. (2009). Secure, online, high-stakes testing: Science fiction or business reality? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 31–34.Google Scholar
Hense, R., Golden, J. H., & Burnett, J. (2009). Making the case for unproctored Internet testing: Do the rewards outweigh the risks? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 20–23.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., Drasgow, F., Schmit, M., Handler, L., Prifitera, A., Margolis, A., et al. (2004). Psychological testing on the Internet: New problems, old issues. American Psychologist, 59, 150–162.Google Scholar
Pearlman, K. (2009). Unproctored Internet testing: Practical, legal, and ethical concerns. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 14–19.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
U.S. Department of Commerce (2008). Safeharbor privacy principles. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from www.export.gov/safeharbor.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor (2005). Obligation to solicit race and gender data for agency enforcement purposes; final rule. Federal Register, 70, 58947–58961.Google Scholar
Wasko, L. E., Chawla, A., & Scott, D. (2007, April). An examination of the opportunities and challenges presented by proctored vs. unproctored testing. In Weiner, J. A. (Chair), The impact of testing conditions on online assessment. Practice Forum presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. A. & Morrison, J. D. Jr. (2009). Unproctored online testing: Environmental conditions and validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 27–30.Google Scholar