Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:58:42.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response Bias in Computerised Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Gerard J. Fogarty
Gerard J. Fogarty*
Affiliation:
Unniversity of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia 4350
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Choosing a response format is a problem when designing computerised tests. Programmers often solve this problem by highlighting a response option and allowing the user to select this option or choose another by using the cursor keys. It is possible that such well-meaning attempts to make computers more user-friendly may heighten response style tendencies. The two experiments to be reported in this study were designed to test the effect of cursor positioning in personality and ability tests. In the first experiment, sixty two Participants were randomly assigned to two groups and asked to complete computerised versions of Forms A and B of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. The position of the highlight was manipulated to produce a two-by-two factorial design with repeated measures on one factor. Results showed that there was evidence of a cursor effect but that it was confined to one of the conditions in the design. Experiment two employed the same sort of manipulation in a computerised version of the ACER Word Knowledge Test with another sample of 36 Participants. Here, no evidence was found for any effect of cursor positioning. Overall, it was concluded that the highlighting technique itself is unlikely to have any effect on measures of cognitive ability but that it may have some effect in the more subjective personality testing domain.

Type
Psychology and Technology
Information
South Pacific Journal of Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , 1998 , pp. 71 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © University of Papua New Guinea and the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Territory University, Australia 1998

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

Bartram, D., & Bayliss, R. (1984). Automated testing: Past, present, and future. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1986). Computers in personality assessment: A brief past, an ebullient present, and an expanding future. Computers in Human Behaviour, 2, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does a computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 562–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, M. J., & Normand, J. (1987). Computerised psychological testing: Overview and critique. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 75, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, J. N. (1985). Introduction to the special series. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 746–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, J. N., Keller, L. S., & Bacon, S. F. (1985). Current developments and future directions in computerised personality assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Davis, C., & Cowles, M. (1989). Automated psychological testing: Method of administration, need for approval, and measures of anxiety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duthie, B. (1984). A critical examination of computer-administered psychological tests. In Schwartz, M. D. (Ed.), Using computers in clinical practice (pp. 135–139). New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Erdman, H. P., Klein, M. H., & Greist, J. H. (1985). Direct patient computer interviewing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 760–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. (1964). Eysenck Personality Inventory. Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Galitz, W. O. (1987). Screen design. Melbourne, Australia: Management Technology Education Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
Hedlund, J. L. (1988). Mental health computing in Great Britain. Computers in Human Services, 3, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J.L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd Ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Huba, G. L. (1986). The use of the runs test for assessing response validity in computer scored inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 929–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. H., & Johnson, J. N. (1981). Psychological considerations related to the development of computerized testing stations. Behavior research Methods and Instrumentation, 13, 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefeld, J. P. (1988). Response effects in computer-administered questioning. Journal of Marketing research, 25, 405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreland, K. L. (1986). Computer-assisted psychological assessment in 1986: A practical guide. Computers in Human Behaviour, 1, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Most, R. (1987). Levels of error in computerised psychological inventories. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36, 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
Roid, G. H. (1986). Computer technology in testing. In Plake, B. S. & Witt, J. C. (Eds.), The future of testing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., Knousf, S. B., Doherty, L. M., Vicino, S. M., Kantor, J., & Greaves, J. (1991). Impression management, candor, and microcomputer-based organizational surveys: An individual differences approach.Google Scholar
Webster, J., & Compeau, D. (1996). Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil administration of questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. R., Genco, K. T., & Yager, G. G. (1985). Assessing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil vs. computerised tests: Demonstration of a promising methodology. Computers in Human Behaviour, 1, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar