Equivalence of electronic and off-line measures

Handbook of Research on Electronic Surveys and Measurements

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 97-103

  Roberts, Lynne D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449378762     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-792-8.ch010     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Barbiette, F. G., & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 1-15.
3. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Methodological and ethical issues in conducting social psychology research via the Internet. In C. Sansone, C. C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.), Handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 359-382). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 562-566.
5. Bressani, R. V., & Downs, A. C. (2002). Youth independent living assessment: Testing the equivalence of Web and paper/pencil versions of the Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 453-464.
6. Burke, M. J., & Normand, J. (1987). Computerized psychological testing: Overview and critique. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 42-51.
7. Cronk, B. C., & West, J. L. (2002). Personality research on the Internet: A comparison of Webbased and traditional instruments in take-home and in-class settings. Behavior, Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34(2), 177-180.
8. Davis, R. N. (1999). Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: Comparison with traditional methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 572-577.
9. Epstein, J., & Klinkenberg, W. D. (2001). From Eliza to Internet: A brief history of computerized assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 295-314.
10. Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Wiley, D., & McKinley, L. (2001). Insuring sample equivalence across Internet and paper-and-pencil assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 339-346.
11. Finegan, J. E., & Allen, N. J. (1994). Computerized and written questionnaires: Are they equivalent? Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 483-496.
12. Hewson, C. M., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C. M. (1996). Proper methodologies for psychological and sociological studies conducted via the Internet. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 186-191.
13. Hinkle, J. S., Sampson, J. P., & Radonsky, V. (1991). Computer assisted vs. paper-and-pencil assessment of personal problems in a clinical population. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 237-242.
14. Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymith, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior, Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31(3), 433-438.
15. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
16. King, W. C., & Miles, E.W. (1995). Aquasi-experimental assessment of the effect of computerizing noncognitive paper-and-pencil measurement: A test of measurement equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 643-651.
17. Liefeld, J. (1988). Response effects in computeradministered questioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 405-409.
18. Lukin, M. E., Dowd, E. T., Plake, B. S., & Kraft, R. G. (1985). Comparing computerized vs. traditional psychological assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 49-58.
19. 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.
20. Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 361-388.
21. Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail vs. electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37, 429-439.
22. Meyerson, P., & Tryon, W. W. (2003). Validating Internet research: A test of the psychometric equivalence of Internet and in-person samples. Behavior Research Methods, Instrument & Computers, 35(4), 614-620.
23. Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 517-529.
24. Ritter, P., Lorig, K., Laurent, D., & Matthews, K. (2004). Internet vs. mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3):e29. Retrieved June 24, 2006 from http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e29/
25. Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Thomas. M. D. (1993). Computer-administered surveys in organizational settings: Alternatives, advantages, and applications. American Behavioral-Scientist, 36, 485-511.
26. Rosenfeld, P., Doherty, L. M., Vicino, S. M., Kantor, J., & Greaves, J. (1989). Attitude assessment in organizations: Testing three microcomputer-based survey systems. Journal of General Psychology, 116, 145-154.
27. Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., Knouse, S. B., Doherty, L. M., Vicini, S. M., Kantor, J., & Greaves, J. (1991). Impression management, candor, and microcomputer-based organizational surveys: An individual differences approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 23-32.
28. Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2003). Internetbased personality testing: Equivalence of measures and assesses' perceptions and reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 194-205.
29. Skinner, H. A., & Allen, B. A. (1983). Does the computer make a difference? Computerized vs. face-to-face vs. self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 51, 267-275.
30. Smith, M. A. & Leigh, B. (1997). Virtual subjects: Using the Internet as an alternative source of subjects and research environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29(4), 496-505.
31. Sproull, L. S. (1986). Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 159-169.
32. Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51, 709-725.
33. Taris, T. W., Bok, I. A., & Meijer, Z. Y. (1998). Assessing stability and change of psychometric properties of multi-item concepts across different situations: A general approach. Journal of Psychology, 132, 301-316.
34. Weisband, S., & Kiesler, S. (1996, April 14-22). Self-disclosure on computer forms: Meta-analysis and implications. Proceedings of the CHI '96 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Vancouver.
35. Whitener, E., & Klein, H. (1995). Equivalence of computerized and traditional research methods: The roles of scanning, social environment, and social desirability. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(1), 65-75.