Using scantron versus an audience response system for survey research: Does methodology matter when measuring computer-mediated communication competence?

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 343-359

  Bunz, Ulla ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audience response system; Classroom Performance System; Comparing measurement instruments; Computer mediated communication competence; Scantron

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; COMPUTERS; DATA REDUCTION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TELEVISION;

AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEM; CLASSROOM; COMPARING MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS; COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE; PERFORMANCE SYSTEM; SCANTRON;

RESEARCH;

EID: 10444264528     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abrahamson, A. L. (2002). An overview of teaching and learning research with classroom communication systems (CCSs). Retrieved November 9, 2003, from http://www.bedu.com/Publications/Samos.html.
2. Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001, October). Web-based surveys: Exploring design and implementation issues. Paper presented at the 2nd annual conference of the Association of Internet Researchers, Minneapolis, MN.
3. Bloom, D. E. (1998). Technology, experimentation, and the quality of survey data. Science, 280, 847-848.
4. Bunz, U. (2003). Growing from computer literacy towards computer-mediated communication competence: Evolution of a field and evaluation of a new measurement instrument. Information Technology, Education, and Society, 4(2), 53-84.
5. Cooley, P. C., Miller, H. G., Gribble, J. N., & Turner, C. F. (2000). Automating telephone surveys: Using T-ACASI to obtain data on sensitive topics. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 1-11.
6. Cox, A. J., Junkin III, W. F. (2002). Webforms to enhance student learning across the curriculum. Retrieved November 9, 2003 from http://www.icte.org/T01_Library/T01_229.PDF.
7. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984), Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (6, pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAL.
8. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.
9. Dillman, D., Totora, R. D., Conradt, J., & Bowker, D. (1998, August). Influence of plain versus fancy design on response rates for web-based surveys. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Dallas, TX.
10. Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Probst, T. M. (2000). Does computerizing paper-and-pencil job attitudes scales make a difference? New IRT analyses offers insight. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 305-313.
11. Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Wiley, D., & McKinley, L. (2001). Insuring sample equivalence across internet and paper-and-pencil assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 339-346.
12. Everett, M. D., Ranker, R. A. (2002, April). Classroom response system: An evaluation at an easy-access regional university. Paper presented at the 8th annual University of Kentucky Economics Teaching Workshop, Lexington, KY.
13. Fox, S., & Schwartz, D. (2002). Social desirability and controllability in computerized and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 389-410.
14. Horowitz, H. M. (2002). Student response systems: Interactivity in a classroom environment. Retrieved November 9, 2003, from http://www.qwizdom.com/software/interactivity_in_classrooms.pdf.
15. 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.
16. Knapp, H., & Kirk, S. A. (2003). Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: Does methodology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 117-134.
17. Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449-458.
18. Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (1997). Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 293-299.
19. Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of standard email methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 378-397.
20. Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2). Retrieved November 9, 2003 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html.
21. Sheehan, K. B., & McMillan, S. J. (1999). Response variation in email surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 45-54.
22. Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97.
23. Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Steiger, D. M, (2003). Humanizing self-administered surveys: Experiments on social presence in web and IVR surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 1-24.
24. Watson, R. T., DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12, 463-478.
25. Witmer, D. F., Colman, R. W., & Katzman, S. L. (1999). From paper-and-pencil to screen-and-keyboard. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net (pp. 145-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.