Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for K-12 populations: A synthesis

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 22-37

  Kingston, Neal M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149132306     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340802558326     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Arce-Ferrer, A., Lau, C., & Griph, G. (2004). Comparison of paper-and-pencil and online versions of grade 5 mathematics and grade 8 reading and writing tests (Research Report). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
2. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Using electronic assessment to measure student performance. The State Education Standard, Washington, DC: National State Boards of Education. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.nasbe.org/Standard/ 10Summer2002/bennett.pdf
3. Bridgeman, B., Lennon, M. L., & Jackenthal, A. (2001). Effects of screen size, screen resolution, and display rate on computer-based test performance (ETS RR-01-23). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4. 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.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Davis, J. (2003). Comparability study of CBT and PBT test (sic) for Mississippi DOE 2003 (Research Report) San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
7. Davis, J. (2004). Comparability study for algebra, biology, English, and history: Fall 2003 online version administered in Spring 2004 (Research Report) San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
8. Dyson, M. C. & Kipping, G. J. (1997). The legibility of screen formats: Are three columns better than one? Computers & Graphics, 21(6), 703-712.
9. Ewing, M., Wiley, A., & Gillie, J. M. (2003). Moving from paper-and-pencil administration to computer-based testing: An investigation of construct equivalence and subgroup differences. Paper presented at the 2003 NCME Annual Meeting, April 2003, Chicago, IL
10. Glassnapp, D. R., Poggio, J., Poggio, A., & Yang, X. (2005). Student attitudes and perceptions regarding computerized testing and the relationship to performance in large scale assessment programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal.
11. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
12. Higgins, J., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2005). Examining the effect of computer-based passage presentation on reading test performance. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(4), Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.jtla.org
13. Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring consistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557-60.
14. International Test Commission (2005). International Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.intestcom.org/Downloads/ITC%20Guidelines%20on%20Computer%20- %20version%202005%20approved.pdf
15. Ito, K., & Sykes, R. C. (2004). Comparability of scores from norm-referenced paper-and-pencil and web-based linear tests for grades 4-12. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
16. Jiao, H., & Vukmirovic, Z. (2005). Comparability between the Spring 2005 online and paper-andpencil tests of the Mississippi Subject Area Testing Program (Research Report) San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
17. Johnson, M., & Green, S. (2004). On-line assessment: The impact of mode on students' strategies, perceptions, and behaviours. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Educational Research Association, Manchester, Great Britain.
18. Kim, D., & Huynh, H. (2006). A comparison of student performance between paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing in four content areas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
19. Kingston, N. M. (2002). Comparability of scores from computer-and paper-based administrations for students in grades K-8. 32nd annual Large-Scale Assessment Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Palm Desert, CA.
20. Light, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1994). The visual presentation and interpretation of metaanalyses. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 439-453). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
21. MacCann, R. (2006). The equivalence of online and traditional testing for different subpopulations and item types. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 79-81.
22. 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.
23. Neuman, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). Computerization of paper tests: When are they equivalent? Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(1), 71-83.
24. 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 AERA Division D Graduate Student Seminar, Montreal, Canada.
25. O'Malley, K. J., Kirkpatrick, R., Sherwood, W., Burdick, H. J., Hsieh, M. C. & Sanford, E. E. (2005, April). Comparability of a paper based and computer based reading test in early elementary grades. Paper presented at the AERA Division D Graduate Student Seminar, Montreal, Canada.
26. Pearson Educational Measurement (2006). Comparability analysis of online and paper-and-pencil MEAP. Iowa City: Author
27. Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D., Yang, X., Beauchamp, A., & Dunham, M. (2005). Moving from paper and pencil to online testing: Findings from a state large scale assessment program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
28. Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D. R., Yang, X. & Poggio, A. J. (2005). A comparative evaluation of score results from computerized and paper & pencil mathematics testing in a large scale state assessment program. Tire Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(6), 1-30.
29. Pommerich, M. (2004). Developing computerized versions of paper tests: Mode effects for passagebased tests. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(6), 1-44.
30. Pomplun, M., Frey, S., & Becker, D. F. (2002). The score equivalence of paper and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 337-354.
31. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3). Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html
32. Sandene, B., Horkay, N., Bennett, R., Allen, N., Kaplan, B., & Oranje, A. (2005). Online assessment in mathematics and writing: Reports from NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project, Research and Development Series (NCES 2005-457). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33. Schenkman B., Fukada T., & Persson, B. (1999). Glare from monitors measured with subjective scales and eye movements. Displays, 20, 11-21.
34. Sim, G., & Horton, M. (2005). Performance and attitude of children in computer versus paper based testing. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Montreal.
35. Wang, S., Young, M., & Brooks, T. (2004). Administration mode comparability study for Stanford Diagnostic Reading and Mathematics Tests. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
36. Yang, X., Poggio, A., Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (2007). Score comparability between computerized and paper-and-pencil linear tests. Unpublished paper.