The use and efficacy of handheld computers for school-based data collection: A literature review

Computers in the Schools

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 187-206

  Adiguzel, Tufan ^a   Vannest, Kimberly J ^a   Zellner, Ronald D ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Data collection; Dependability; Handheld computers; Mobile computing

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTABILITY; COMPUTERIZED DATA; DATA COLLECTION; DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM; DATA COLLECTION TOOLS; DEPENDABILITY; INTENTION TO USE; LITERATURE REVIEWS;

MOBILE COMPUTING; PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANTS; RESEARCH; TOOLS;

DATA ACQUISITION;

EID: 70350786186     PISSN: 07380569     EISSN: 15287033     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07380560903095147     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Airasian, P. W. (2001). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications. Blacklick, OH: McGraw Hill.
2. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
3. Avizienis, A. M., Laprie, J. C., & Randell, B. (2001). Fundamental concepts of dependability. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.24.6074
4. Batten, L., Chowdhury, M., & Drew, J. (2003). The major drawbacks to the use of wireless communication products in education. In Proceedings of the 1st Australian Information Security Management Conference (pp. 75-80). Joondalup, WA, Australia: We-B Centre, Edith Cowan University.
5. Bell, D. R., & Beedle, B. B. (1993). Observing and recording children's behavior. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
6. Berthelsen, C. L., & Stilley, K. R. (2000). Automated personal health inventory for dentistry: A pilot study. Journal of the American Dental Association, 131, 59-66.
7. Bliven, B. D., Kaufman, S. E., & Spertus, J. A. (2001). Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Quality of Life Research, 10 15-21.
8. Crawford, V., & Vahey, P. (2002). Palm education pioneers program, March 2002 evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
9. Curtis, M., Luchini, K., Bobrowsky, W., Quintana, C., & Soloway, E. (2002). Handheld use in K-12: A descriptive account. In M. Milrad, U. Hoppe, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE 2002) (pp. 23-30). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
10. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
11. Davis, S. M. (2002). Research to industry: Four years of observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices. In M. Milrad, U. Hoppe & Kinshuk (Eds.), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE 2002) (pp. 31-38). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
12. Dixon, M. R. (2003). Creating a portable data-collection system with Microsoft embedded visual tools for the Pocket PC. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 271-284.
13. Donát, P. (1991). Measuring behavior: The tools and the strategies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 15, 447-454.
14. Dumont, R., & Chafouleas, S. M. (1999). Conducting behavior observations: Some technical support? Communiqué, 32-33. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
15. Edyburn, D. L. (2001). Critical issues in special education technology research: What do we know? What do we need to know? In M. Mastropieri & T. Scruggs (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 95-118). New York: JAI Press.
16. Emmelkamp, P. M. (2005). Technological innovations in clinical assessment and psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 74, 336-343.
17. Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., & McKinley, L. (2001). Insuring sample equivalence across Internet and paper and pencil assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 339-346.
18. Farrell, A. D. (1991). Computers and behavioral assessment: Current applications, future possibilities, and obstacles to routine use. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 159-179.
19. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 43-76.
20. Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Educational media and technology yearbook 2002 Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
21. Fletcher, L. A., Erickson, D. J., Toomey, T. L., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2003). Handheld computers: A feasible alternative to paper forms for field data collection. Evaluation Review, 27, 165-178.
22. Fouladi, R. T., McCarthy, C. J., & Moller, N. (2002). Paper-and-pencil or online? Evaluating mode effects on measures of emotional functioning and attachment. Assessment, 9, 204-215.
23. Gravlee, C. C., Zenk, S. N., Woods, S., Rowe, Z., & Schulz, A. J. (2006). Handheld computers for systematic observation of the social and physical environment. Field Methods, 18, 382-397.
24. Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Kamps, D., Terry, B., & Delquadri, J. (1994). Development and validation of standard classroom observation systems for school practitioners: Ecobehavioral assessment systems software (EBASS). Exceptional Children, 61, 197-210.
25. Hackbarth, G., Grover, V., & Yi, M. (2002). Computer playfulness and anxiety: Positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Information and Management, 40, 221-232.
26. Hammond, E. J., & Sweeney, B. P. (2000). Electronic data collection by trainee anesthetists using palm top computers. European Journal of Anesthesiology, 17, 91-98.
27. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Continuum.
28. Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 255-259.
29. Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 16, 91-112.
30. Hu, P. J., Clark, T. H., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information and Management, 41, 227-241.
31. Hutter, D., Muller, G., Stephan, W., & Ullmann, M. (2003). Security in pervasive computing. New York: Springer.
32. Ice, G. H. (2004). Technological advances in observational data collection: The advantages and limitations of computer-assisted data collection. Field Methods, 16, 352-375.
33. Johannes, C. B., Crawford, S. L., Woods, J., Goldstein, R. B., Tran, D., Mehrotra, S., Johnson, K. B., & Santoro, N. (2000). An electronic menstrual cycle calendar: Comparison of data quality with a paper version. Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society, 7, 200-208.
34. Kahng, S. W., & Iwata, B. A. (1998). Computerized systems for collecting real-time observational data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31, 253-261.
35. Kwon, H. S., & Chidambaram, L. (2000). A test of the technology acceptance model: The case of cellular phone adoption. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 1, p. 1023). Wailea Maui, HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society Press.
36. Lal, D. O., Smith, F. W., Davis, J. P., Castro, H. Y., Smith, D. W., Chinkes, D. L., & Barrow, R. E. (2000). Palm computer demonstrates a fast and accurate means of burn data collection. Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, 21, 559-561.
37. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
38. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
39. Ma, W. W., Andersson, R., & Streith, K. O. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 387-395.
40. Mahoney, J. L., & Zigler, E. F. (2006). Translating science to policy under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Lessons from the national evaluation of the 21st century community learning centers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 282-294.
41. Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Regstad, N. G. (1996). Using subjective norms to predict teachers' computer use. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(1), 27-33.
42. Marquie, J. C., Jourdan-Boddaert, L., & Huet, N. (2002). Do older adults underestimate their actual computer knowledge? Behavior and Information Technology, 21, 273-280.
43. McDonald, A. S. (2002). The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-and-pencil educational assessments. Computers and Education, 39, 299-312.
44. Merrell, K. W. (2003). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 319-341.
46. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/ elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
47. Oosterhof, A. (2001). Classroom applications of educational measurement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
48. Pace, W. D., & Staton, E. W. (2005). Electronic data collection options for practicebased research networks. Annals of Family Medicine, 3, 21-29.
49. Palermo, T., & Valenzuela, D., & Stork, T. T. (2004). A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: Impact on compliance, accuracy, and acceptability. Pain, 107, 213-219.
50. Pettit, F. A. (1999). Exploring the use of the World Wide Web as a psychology data collection tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(1), 67-71.
51. Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., Holtz, B. C., & Kemp, C. (2003). Web-based and paper-and-pencil testing of applicants in a proctored setting: Are personality, biodata, and situational judgment tests comparable? Personnel Psychology, 56, 733-752.
52. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297-310.
53. Sarkar, A., Dutta, A., Dhingra, U., Dhingra, P., Verma, P., Juyal, R., Black, R. E., Menon, V. P., Kumar, J., & Sazawal, S. (2006). Development and use of behavior and social interaction software installed on Palm handheld for observation of a child's social interactions with the environment. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 407-415.
54. Schaff, J. I., Jerome, M. K., Behrmann, M. M., & Sprague, D. (2005). Science in special education: Emerging technologies. In D. L. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 642-662). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
55. Schulenberg, S. E., & Yutrzenka, B. A. (2004). Ethical issues in the use of computerized assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 477-490.
56. Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York: Guilford.
57. Spiegler, I. (2003). Technology and knowledge: Bridging a "generating" gap. Information and Management, 40, 533-539.
58. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Using a handheld PC to collect and analyze observational data. In Proceedings of Special InterestGroup on theDesign of Communication (SIGDOC) Conference (pp. 73-79). San Francisco, CA: ACM Press.
59. Stacey, R. (2000). The emergence of knowledge in organizations. Emergence, 2(4), 23-39.
60. Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51, 709-725.
61. Sterritt, R., & Bustard, D. (2003). Autonomic computing: A means of achieving dependability? In Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) International Conference on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (pp. 247-251). Huntsville, AL: IEEE Computer Society Press.
62. Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers' hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
63. Tapp, J. (2008a). MINI-MOOSES: A multiple option observation system for experimental studies [Handheld computer application]. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Kennedy Center. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://mooses.vuinnovations.com/
64. Tapp, J. (2008b). INTMAN: Interval Manager [Handheld computer application]. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Kennedy Center. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://intman.vuinnovations.com/
65. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.
66. Trapl, E. S., Borawski, E. A., Stork, P. P., Lovegreen, L. D., Colabianchi, N., Cole, M. L., & Charvat, J. M. (2005). Use of audio-enhanced personal digital assistants for school-based data collection. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 296-305.
67. Vispoel, W. P., Boo, J., & Bleiler, T. (2001). Computerized and paper-and-pencil versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A comparison of psychometric features and respondent preferences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 461-474.
68. Wild, M. (1996). Technology refusal: Rationalizing the failure of students and beginning teachers to use computers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 134-143.
69. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 165-205.
70. Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1991). The changing face of educational evaluation. Theory into Practice, 30, 3-12.
71. Yuen, A. K., & Ma, W. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 365-382.
72. Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 5-30.