The score equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 337-354

  Pomplun, Mark ^a   Frey, Sharon ^a   Becker, Douglas F ^a  

^a Riverside Publishing Company   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036245806     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164402062002009     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. American Psychological Association. (1986). Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington, DC: Author
2. Baraett, V., & Lewis, T. (1984). Outliers in statistical data. New York: Wiley
3. Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test: Technical report Forms G&H. Chicago: Riverside
4. Clansing, C., & Schmitt, D. (1990). Paper versus CRT: Are reading rate and comprehension affected? In Proceedings of selected paper presentations at the convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323924)
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
6. Freeberg, N. E., Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. (1989). Analysis of the revised Student Descriptive Questionnaire, Phase II-Predictive validity of academic self-report. (College Board Report No. 89-8 and ETS Research Report 89-49). New York: College Entrance Examination Board
7. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
8. Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Finn, R., Haupt, B., & Minuto, A. (1987). Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29, 497-517
9. Gould, J. D., & Grischkowsky, N. (1983). Doing the same work with paper and cathode ray tube displays (CRT). Human Factors, 24, 329-338
10. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer
11. Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests. College Board Report 88-8. New York: College Entrance Examination Board
12. Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-458
13. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill
14. Swineford, F. (1974). The test analysis manual (SR-74-06). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
15. van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Harsveld, M. (1994). The incomplete equivalence of the paper-and-pencil and computer versions of the General Aptitude Test Battery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 852-859
16. Wise, S. L., & Plake, B. S. (1989). Research on the effects of administering tests via computers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 8(3), 5-10