Electronic versus paper surveys: Analysis of potential psychometric biases

Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Volumn 37, Issue , 2004, Pages 4231-4238

  McCoy, Scott ^a   Carr, Christopher L ^b   Marks Jr , Peter V ^c   Mbarika, Victor ^d  

^a Dept of Economics and Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c Army Medical Department Center and School   (United States)

^d LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INTERNET ADMINISTRATION; ONLINE SURVEYS; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODELS (TAM);

COMPUTER HARDWARE; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INTERNET; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING; WORLD WIDE WEB;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 12344318000     PISSN: 10603425     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad (1999), "Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?," Decision Sciences, 30: 361-391.
2. Bartram, D. & Bayliss, R. (1984), "Automated testing: Past, present and future," Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57: 221-237.
3. Chau, P. Y. K. (1996), "An Empirical Assessment of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model," Journal of Management Information Systems 13(2): 185-204.
4. Churchill, JR. G. A. (1992), "Better Measurement Practices are Critical to better Understanding of Sales Management Issues, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 12(2): 73-80.
5. Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E. & Smith, D. K. (1992), Psychological Testing and Assessment, 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
6. Cronbach, L. J. (1990), Essentials of psychological testing, 5th ed. New York: Harper Collins.
7. Davis, F. (1986), "Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results," unpublished dissertation, Boston, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
8. Davis, F. D. (1989), "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319-340.
9. Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi and P. R. Warshaw (1989), "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science 35(8): 982-1003.
10. Doll, W. J., A. Hendrickson and X. Deng (1998), "Using Davis's Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-Use Instruments for Decision Making: A Confirmatory and Multigroup Invariance Analysis," Decision Sciences, 29: 839-869.
11. Ellis, B. J. & Symons, D. (1990), "Sex differences in sexual fantasies: An evolutionary psychological approach," Journal of Sex Research, 27: 527-555.
12. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
13. Gefen, D. and D. W. Straub (1997), "Gender Differences in Perception and Adoption of E-Mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model," MIS Quarterly, 21(4): 389-400.
14. Hendrickson, A. R., Massey, P. D. & Cronan, T. P. (1993), "On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales," MIS Quarterly, 227-230.
15. Honaker, L. M. & Fowler, R. D. (1990), "Computer-assisted psychological assessment," In G. Goldstein & M. Hersen (Eds), Handbook of psychological assessment, 2nd ed., pp. 521-545. New York: Pergamon.
16. Kline, P. (1993a), The Handbook of Psychological Testing, London: Routledge.
17. Kline, P. (1993b). Psychometric Theory and Method, London: Routledge.
18. Levine, S., Ancill, R. J. & Roberts, A. P. (1988), "Assessment of suicide risk by computer-delivered self-rating questionnaire: Preliminary findings," Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 80: 216-220.
19. Locke, S. D. & Gilbert, B. O. (1995), "Method of psychological assessment, self disclosure, and experiential differences: A study of computer, questionnaire and interview assessment formats," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10: 255-263.
20. Mathieson, K. (1991). "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, 2(3): 173-191.
21. McCoy, S. and Marks, P., "Using Electronic Surveys to Collect Data: Experiences from the Field," Proceedings of the 2001 Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA.
22. Meier, S. (1994), The Chronic Crisis in Psychological Measurement and Assessment: A Historical Survey. San Diego: Academic Press.
23. Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Skinner, H. A. & Pakula, A. (1986), "Challenge of Computers in Psychological Assessment." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17: 44-50.
25. Smith, M. A. & Leigh, B. (1997), "Virtual subjects: Using the Internet as an Alternative Source of Subjects and Research Environment," Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29: 496-505.
26. Straub, D. W. (1994), "The Effect of Culture on IT Diffusion: E-Mail and FAX in Japan and the U.S.," Information Systems Research 5(1): 23-47.
27. Straub, D. W., M. Keil and W. Brennan (1997), "Testing the Technology Acceptance Model Across Cultures: A Three Country Study," Information & Management 33: 1-11.
28. Torkzadeh, G. & Doll, W. (1991), "Test-retest Reliability of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument, Decision Sciences, 22: 26-37.
29. Torkzadeh, G., & Doll, W. (1994), "The Test-Retest Reliability of User Involvement Instruments, Information & Management, 26: 21-31.
30. Venkatesh, V. and F. D. Davis (2000), "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, 46(2): 186-204.
31. Venkatesh, V. and M. G. Morris (2000), "Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior," MIS Quarterly, 24(1): 115-139.
32. Webster, J. & Compeau, D. (1996), "Computer-Assisted Versus Paper-and-Pencil Administration of Questionnaires," Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28: 567-576.