Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil versions of algebra and biology assessments

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 1-29

  Kim, Do Hong ^a   Huynh, Huynh ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37649023386     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15402525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
2. Choi, S.W., & Tinkler, T. (2002). Evaluating comparability of paper 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.
3. nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
4. Drasgow, F (2002). The work ahead: A psychometric infrastructure for computerized adaptive tests. In C.N. Mills, M.T. Potenza, J.J. Fremer, & W.C. Ward (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Fitzpatrick, S., & Triscari, R. (2005, April). Comparability studies of the Virginia computer-delivered tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
6. Grissom, R.J. & Kim, J.J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
8. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.5.1 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
9. Keng, L., McClarty, K.L., & Davis, L.L. (2006, April). Item-level comparative analysis of online and paper administrations of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
10. Kim, D.-H., & Huynh, H. (in press-a). Computer-based and paper-and-pencil administration mode effects on a statewide end-of-course English test. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
11. Kim, D.-H., & Huynh, H. (in press-b). Transition from paper-and pencil to computer-based testings: Examining stability of Rasch latent trait across gender and ethnicity. In E.V. Smith, Jr. & G.E. Stone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in criterion-reference testing: Practice analysis to score reporting. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
12. Linacre, J. M. (2005). WINSTEPS version 3.59.1 [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: Author.
13. Maryland State Department of Education (2005). 2005 MSA Reading Technical Report. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/msde/divisions/ planningresultstest/2005+MSA+Reading+Technical+Report, September 2, 2006.
14. Minnesota Department of Education (2004). Minnesota Basic Skills Tests Technical Manual 2004 Administration. Retrieved from http://education.state.mn. us/mdeprod/groups/Assessment/documents/Report/006696.pdf, May 30, 2007.
15. Nichols, P., & Kirkpatrick, R. (2005, April). Comparability of the computer-administered tests with existing paper-and-pencil tests in reading and mathematics tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
16. Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D.R., Yang, X., & Poggio, A.J. (2005). A comparative evaluation of score results from computerized and paper and pencil mathematics testing in a large scale state assessment program. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(6). Retrieved July 9, 2005, from http://www.jtla.org.
17. Pommerich, M. (2004). Developing computerized versions of paper-and-pencil tests: Mode effects for passage-based tests. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(6). Retrieved July 9, 2005, from http://www.jtla.org.
18. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
19. Russell, M. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7. Retrieved September 19, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20/.
20. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5. Retrieved August 5, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html.
21. Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2001). Effects of computer versus paper administration of a state-mandated writing assessment. TC Record.Org. Retrieved June 19, 2005, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID= 10709.
22. Sandene, B., Horkay, N., Bennett, R., Allen, N., Braswell, J., Kaplan, B., & Oranje, A. (2005). Online assessment in mathematics and writing: Reports from the NAEP technology-based assessment project, research and development series (National Center for Education Statistics Publication No. NCES 2005-457). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS version 9.1.2 [Computer Software]. Cary, NC: Author.
24. South Carolina Department of Education (2003). Technical documentation for the 2003 Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Columbia, SC: Author.
25. SPSS Inc. (2004). SPSS version 13.0 for Windows [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: Author.
26. Swanson, C.B. (2006, May 4). Tracking U.S. Trends. Education Week's Technology Counts, 25(35), 50-53.
27. Way, W.D., Davis, L.L., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2006, April). Score comparability of online and paper administrations of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
28. Wright, B.D., & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.