Studying the equivalence of computer-delivered and paper-based administrations of the raven standard progressive matrices test

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 855-867

  Arce Ferrer, Alvaro J ^a   Guzmán, Elvira Martínez ^b  

^a PEARSON   (United States)

^b Centro de Evaluación Educativa del Estado de Yucatán   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Mode of test administration; Raven Standard Progressive Matrices; Reliability; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350221873     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164409332219     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Bandalos, D., & Finney, S. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equating modeling. In G. Marcoulides & R. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Bentler, P., & Bonett, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
4. Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
5. Boo, J., & Vispoel, W. (1998, April). Computer versus paper-pencil assessment of educational development: Score comparability and examinee preference. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
6. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7. Bunderson, V., Inouye, D., & Olsen, J. (1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 367-407). Phoenix, AZ: Onyx.
8. Calvert, E., & Waterfall, R. (1982). A comparison of conventional and automated administrations of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 17, 305-310.
9. Choi, I., Kim, K., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20, 295-320.
10. Chua, S., Chen, D., & Wong, A. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 609-623.
11. Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic test. London: Taylor & Francis.
12. Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2001). Confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 517-531.
13. Henson, R.K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
14. International Test Commission. (2005). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet delivered testing. Retrieved February 16, 2006, from http://www.intestcom.org/guidelines.
15. Jensen, A. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
16. Kubinger, K.D., Formann, A.K., & Farkas, M.G. (1991). Psychometric shortcomings of Raven's Stan dard Progressive Matrices, in particular for computerized testing. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 41, 295-300.
17. Lee, J. (1986). The effect of past computer experience on computer aptitude test performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 727-733.
18. Leeson, H. (2006). The mode effect: A literature review of human and technology issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 1-24.
19. Levine, T., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1998). Computer use, confidence, attitude, and knowledge: A causal analysis. Computer in Human Behavior, 14, 125-146.
20. Luecht, R., Hadadi, A., Swanson, D., & Case, S. (1998). Testing the test: A comparative study of a comprehensive basic science test using paper-and-pencil and computerized formats. Academic Medicine, 73, 51-53.
21. Lynn, R., Backhoff, E., & Contreras, L. (2004). Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices among 7 to 10 year olds: Some normative data for Mexico. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 779-789.
22. McDonald, A. (2002). The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-and-pencil educational assessments. Computers and Education, 39, 299-312.
23. Mead, A., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper and pencil cognitive ability test: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-458.
24. Newman, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). Computerization of paper-and-pencil tests: When are they equivalent? Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 71-83.
25. Pommerich, M., & Burden, T. (2000, April). From simulation to application: Examinees react to computerized testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans, LA.
26. Raven, J. (2000). The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1-48.
27. Raven, J., Raven, J.C., & Court, J. (1993). Test de matrices progresivas: manual para la aplicaciän. [Standard progressive matrices test: Direction for administration manual]. Buenos Aires: Paidäs.
28. Rushton, J. (2002). Jensen effects and African/Colored/Indian/White differences on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 65-70.
29. Rushton, J., Skuy, M., & Bons, T. (2004). Construct validity of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices for African and Non-African Engineering Students in South Africa. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 220-229.
30. Spray, J., Ackerman, T., Reckase, M., & Carlson, J. (1989). Effect of the medium of item presentation on examinee performance and item characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 261-271.
31. Sukigara, M. (1996). Equivalence between computer and booklet administrations of the new Japanese version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 570-585.
32. Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Eignor, D., & Jamieson, J. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks. Language Learning, 49, 219-274.
33. Van der Ven, A., & Ellis, L. (2000). A Rasch analysis of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 45-64.
34. Vispoel, W. (2000). Computerized versus paper-and-pencil assessment of self-concept: Score comparability and respondent preferences. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 130-143.
35. Williams, J., & McCord, D. (2006). Equivalence of standard and computerized versions of Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 791-800.