Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 428-434

  Dandurand, Frédéric ^a   Shultz, Thomas R ^a   Onishi, Kristine H ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; LEARNING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; REFERENCE VALUE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; DATA COLLECTION; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; LEARNING; MALE; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL; PSYCHOMETRICS; REFERENCE VALUES; SOFTWARE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 48149099644     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.40.2.428     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. BIRNBAUM, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803-832.
2. BOSNJAK, M., & TUTEN, T. L. (2003). Prepaid and promised incentives in Web surveys. An experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 208-217.
3. BUCHANAN, T. (2002). Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous? Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 33, 148-154.
4. DANDURAND, F., BOWEN, M., & SHULTZ, T. R. (2004). Learning by imitation, reinforcement and verbal rules in problem-solving tasks. In J. Triesch & T. Jebara (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Development and Learning: Developing social brains (pp. 88-95). La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Institute for Neural Computation.
5. EATON, J., & STRUTHERS, C. W. (2002). Using the Internet for organizational research: A study of cynicism in the workplace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 305-313.
6. EICHSTAEDT, J. (2001). An inaccurate-timing filter for reaction time measurement by JAVA applets implementing Internet-based experiments. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33, 179-186.
7. GOSLING, S. D., VAZIRE, S., SRIVASTAVA, S., & JOHN, O. P. (2004). Should we trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
8. HALBEISEN, L., & HUNGERBÜHLER, N. (1995). The general counterfeit coin problem. Discrete Mathematics, 147, 139-150.
9. HOGG, R. V., & CRAIG, A. T. (1995). Introduction to mathematical statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. KONSTAN, J. A., ROSSER, B. R. S., ROSS, M. W., STANTON, J., & EDWARDS, W. M. (2005). The story of subject naught: A cautionary but optimistic tale of Internet survey research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, Article 11. Retrieved 2006 from jcmc .indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/konstan.html.
11. KRANTZ, J. H., & DALAL, R. (2000). Validity of Web-based psychological research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 35-60). San Diego: Academic Press.
12. MEYERSON, P., & TRYON, W. W. (2003). Validating Internet research: A test of the psychometric equivalence of Internet and in-person samples. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 614-620.
13. MICHALAK, E. E., & SZABO, A. (1998). Guidelines for Internet research: An update. European Psychologist, 3, 70-75.
14. MUSCH, J., & KLAUER, K. C. (2002). Psychological experimenting on the World Wide Web: Investigating context effects in syllogistic reasoning. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 181-212). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
15. O'NEIL, K. M., & PENROD, S. D. (2001). Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect results: Sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33, 226-233.
16. O'NEIL, K. M., PENROD, S. D., & BORNSTEIN, B. H. (2003). Web-based research: Methodological variables' effects on dropout and sample characteristics. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 217-226.
17. PRECKEL, F., & THIEMANN, H. (2003). Online- versus paper-pencil- version of a high potential intelligence test. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 131-138.
18. REIPS, U.-D. (2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89-114). San Diego: Academic Press.
19. REIPS, U.-D. (2002a). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49, 243-256.
20. REIPS, U.-D. (2002b). Theory and techniques of conducting Web experiments. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 229-250). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
21. RIVA, G., TERUZZI, T., & ANOLLI, L. (2003). The use of the Internet in psychological research: Comparison of online and offline questionnaires. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 73-80.
22. SALGADO, J. F., & MOSCOSO, S. (2003). Internet-based personality testing: Equivalence of measures and assessees' perceptions and reactions. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11, 194-205.
23. SIMMEL, M. L. (1953). The coin problem: A study in thinking. American Journal of Psychology, 66, 229-241.
24. VIRZI, R. A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, 457-468.