Comparison of three modes of measuring stress, coping, and humor in school-age children

Journal of Nursing Measurement

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 79-98

  Fouladi, Rachel T ^a   Rew, Lynn ^b   Horner, Sharon D ^b  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Coping; Humor; Mode effects; Psychometrics; Stress; Youth

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751249608     PISSN: 10613749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1891/jnm-v14i2a002     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. American Psychological Association. (1986). Guidelines for computer based tests and interpretation. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Aquilino, W. S., Wright, D. L., & Supple A. J. (2000). Response effects due to bystander presence in CASI and paper-and-pencil surveys of drug use and alcohol use. Substance Use Misuse, 35, 845-867.
4. Beebe, T. J., Mika, T., Harrison, P. A., Anderson, R. E., et al. (1997). Computerized school surveys: Design and development issues. Social Science Computer Review, 15, 159-169.
5. Bugbee, A. C. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 282-299.
6. Cho, H., & LaRose, R. (1999). Privacy issues in Internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 421-434.
7. Choi, S. W., & Tinkler, T. (2002, April). Evaluating comparability of paper-and-pencil and computer-based assessment in a K-12 setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
8. Davis, R. N. (1999). Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: Comparison with traditional methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31, 572-577.
9. DiLalla, D. L. (1996). Computerized administration of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Assessment, 3, 365-374.
10. Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Probst, T. M. (2000). Does computerizing paper-and-pencil job attitude scales make a difference? New IRT analyses offer insight. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 305-313.
11. Dowling, J. S., & Fain, J. A. (1999). A multidimensional sense of humor scale for school-aged children: Issues of reliability and validity. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 14(1), 38-43.
12. Drummond, H. E., Ghosh, S., Ferguson, A., Brackenridge, D., & Tiplady, B. (1995). Electronic quality of life questionnaires: A comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Quality of Life Research, 4, 21-26.
13. Epstein, J. F., Barker, P. R., & Kroutil, L. A. (2001). Mode effects in self-reported mental health data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 529-549.
14. Fouladi, R. T., McCarthy, C. J., & Moller, N. P. (2002). Paper-and-pencil or online? Evaluating mode effects on measures of emotional functioning and attachment. Assessment, 9, 204-215.
15. Hansen, J. C., Neuman, J. L., Haverkamp, B. E., & Lubinski, B. R. (1997). Comparison of user reaction to two methods of Strong Interest Inventory administration and report feedback. Measure and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 115-127.
16. Hetter, R., Segall, D. O., & Bloxom, B. M. (1997). Evaluating item calibration medium in computerized adaptive testing. In W. A. Sandsk, B. K. Waters, & J. R. McBride (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17. 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.
18. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
19. Lewis, C. E., Siegel, J. M., & Lewis, M. A. (1984). Feeling bad: Exploring sources of distress among pre-adolescent children. American Journal of Public Health, 74, 117-122.
20. Litaker, D. (2003). New technology in quality of life research: Are all computer assisted approaches created equal? Quality of Life Research, 12, 387-393.
21. McBride, J. S., Anderson, R. T., & Bahnson, J. L. (1999). Using a hand-held computer to collect data in an orthopedic outpatient clinic: A randomized trial of two survey methods. Medical Care, 37, 647-651.
22. Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Effects of administration medium: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-458.
23. Mensch, B. S., Hewett, P. C., & Erulkar, A. S. (2003). The reporting of sensitive behavior by adolescents: A methodological experiment in Kenya. Demography, 40, 247-268.
24. Miles, E. W., & King Jr., W. C. (1998). Gender and administration mode effects when pencil-and-paper personality tests are computerized. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 67-76.
25. Neuman, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). Computerization of paper-and-pencil tests: When are they equivalent? Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 71-83.
26. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1992). Children coping with uncontrollable stressors. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 1, 183-189.
27. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Parks, B. T., Mead, D. E., & Johnson, B. L. (1985). Validation of a computer administered Marital Adjustment Test. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 207-210.
29. Pinsoneault, T. B. (1996). Equivalency of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil administered versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 291-300.
30. Pommerich, M. (2002, April). The effect of administration mode on test performance and score precision and some factors contributing to mode differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
31. Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (1997). Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 293-299.
32. Pouwer, F., Snoek, F. J., van der Ploeg, H. M., Heine, R. J., & Brand, A. N. (1998). A comparison of the standard and computerized versions of the Well-Being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Quality of Life Research, 7, 33-38.
33. Rew, L., & Horner, S. D. (2003). Youth resilience framework for reducing health-risk behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 18, 379-388.
34. Rew, L., Horner, S. D., Riesch, L., & Cauvin, R. (2004). Computer-assisted survey interviewing with school-age children. Advances in Nursing Science, 27, 129-137.
35. Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754-775.
36. Ryan-Wenger, N. M. (1990). Development and psychometric properties of the schoolager's coping strategies inventory. Nursing Research, 39, 344-349.
37. Ryan-Wenger, N. M., & Copeland, S. G. (1994). Coping strategies used by school-age Black children from low-income families. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 9, 33-40.
38. Sawaki, Y. (2001). Comparability of conventional and computerized tests of reading in a second language. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 38-59.
39. Schmitz, N., Hartkamp, N., Brinschwitz, C., & Michalek, S. (1999). Computerized administration of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C) in psychosomatic outpatients. Psychiatric Research, 87, 217-221.
40. Schulenberg, S. E., & Yutrzenka, B. A. (1999). The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative affect. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 315-321.
41. Schwanz, S. J., Mullis, R. L., & Dunham, R. M. (1998) Effects of authoritative structure in the measurement of identity formation: Individual computer-managed versus group paper-and-pencil testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 239-248.
42. Stone, A. A., & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199-202.
43. Supple, A. J., Aquilino, W. S., & Wright, D. L. (1999). Collecting sensitive self-report data with laptop computers: Impact on the response tendencies of adolescents in a home interview. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 467-488.
44. Tseng, H.-M., Tiplady, B., Macleod, H. A., & Wright, P. (1998). Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 599-610.
45. Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., et al. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867-873.
46. Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Weber, B., Fritze, J., Schneider, B., Kuhner, T., & Maurer, K. (2002). Bias in computerized neuropsychological assessment of depressive disorders caused by computer attitude. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 105, 126-130.
48. Webster, J., & Compeau, D. (1996). Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil administration of questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28, 567-576.
49. Wright, D. L., Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (1998). A comparison of computer-assisted paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires in a survey on smoking, alcohol, and drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 331-353.