Computer versus paper-and-Pencil administration mode and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 293-299

  Potosky, Denise ^a   Bobko, Philip ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERSONALITY; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERSONALITY; PERSONNEL SELECTION;

EID: 0031113074     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.293     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 562-566.
2. Burke, M. J. (1992). Computerized psychological testing: Impacts on measuring predictor constructs and future job behavior. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 203-238). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Davis, C., & Cowles, M. (1989). Automated psychological test-ing : Method of administration, need for approval, and measures of anxiety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 311-320.
4. Evan, W. M., & Miller, J. R. (1969). Differential effects on response bias of computer vs. conventional administration of a social science questionnaire: An exploratory methodological experiment. Behavioral Science, 14, 216-227.
5. Finegan, J. E., & Allen, N. J. (1994). Computerized and written questionnaires: Are they equivalent? Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 483-496.
6. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
7. Kantor, J. (1991). The effects of computer administration and identification on the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 309-323.
8. Katz, L., & Dalby, J. T. (1981). Computer and manual administration of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 586-588.
9. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
10. King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1995). A quasi-experimental assessment of the effect of computerizing noncognitive paper-and-pencil measurements: A test of measurement equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 643-651.
11. Koson, D., Kitchen, C., Kochen, M., & Stodolosky, D. (1970). Psychological testing by computer: Effect on response bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 803-810.
12. Lautenschlager, G. J., & Flaherty, V. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310-314.
13. Lee, J., Moreno, K. E., & Sympson, J. B. (1986). The effects of mode of test administration on test performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 467-474.
14. Lukin, M. E., Dowd, T., Plake, B. S., & Kraft, R. G. (1985). Comparing computerized MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 13, 407-412.
15. Lushene, R. E., O'Neil, H. F., & Dunn, T. (1974). Equivalent validity of a completely computerized MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 353-361.
16. Martin, C. L., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72-80.
17. McCornack, R. L. (1956). A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 343-344.
18. Mead. A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-459.
19. Millstein, S. G. (1987). Acceptability and reliability of sensitive information collected via computer interview. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 523-533.
20. Mowday, R., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
21. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). BIDR reference manual for Version 6. Unpublished manuscript.
22. Rosenfeld, P., Doherty, L. M., Vicino, S. M., Kantor, J., & Greaves, J. (1989). Attitude assessment in organizations: Testing three microcomputer-based survey systems. Journal of General Psychology, 116, 145-154.
23. Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., Knouse. 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. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 23-32.
24. Rozensky, R. H., Honor,.L. F., Rasinski, K., Tovian, S. M., & Herz, G. I. (1986). Paper-and-pencil versus computer-administered MMPIs: A comparison of patients' attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 111-116.
25. Schuldberg, D. (1988). The MMPI is less sensitive to the automated testing format than it is to repeated testing: Item and scale effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 285-298.
26. Skinner, H. A., & Allen, B. A. (1983). Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 267-275.
27. Vansickle, T. R., Kimmel, C., & Kapes, J. T. (1989). Test-retest equivalency of the computer-based and paper-pencil versions of the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 88-93.
28. White, D. M., Clements, C. B., & Fowler, R. D. (1985). A comparison of computer administration with standard administration of the MMPI. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 153-162.
29. Wilson, F. R., Genco, K. T., & Yager, G. G. (1985). Assessing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil vs. computerized tests: Demonstration of a promising methodology. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 265-275.