Comparison of abifity tests administered online and in the laboratory

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1183-1189

  Ihme, Jan Marten ^a   Lemke, Franziska ^b   Lieder, Kerstin ^b   Martin, Franka ^b   Müller, Jonas C ^b   Schmidt, Sabine ^b  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

^b FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE TEST; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PROBLEM SOLVING; QUALITY CONTROL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTELLIGENCE TESTS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PROBLEM SOLVING; QUALITY CONTROL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 74949103543     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1183     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bartram, D., & Brown, A. (2004). Online testing: Mode of administration and the stability of OPQ 32i scores. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 12, 278-284. doi:10.1111/j.0965 -075X.2004.282-1.X
2. Buchanan, T. (2002). Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous? Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 33, 148-154. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.33.2.148
3. Buchanan, T. (2003). Internet based questionnaire assessment: Appropriate use in clinical contexts. Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 32, 100-109. doi:10.1080/16506070310000957 (Pubitemid 37080625)
4. Buchanan, T, & Smith, J. L. (1999a). Research on the Internet: Validation of a World-Wide Web mediated personality scale. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31,565-571.
5. Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999b). Using the Internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the World Wide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90,125-144. doi:10.1348/000712699161189
6. Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A, & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test Psychological Review, 97,404-431. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404
7. Carroli, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Coyne, L, Warszta, T., Beadle, S., & Sheehan, N. (2005). The impact of mode of administration on the equivalence of a test battery: A quasi-experimental design. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 13,220-224. doi: 10.1111/j. 1468-2389.2005.00318.x
9. Embretson, S. E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3,380-396. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.3.380
10. Ihme, J. M. (2007). Ergänzung des Itempools des Matrizentests der adaptiven eignungsdiagnostischen Testung [Extension of the item pool of the matrices test of the adaptive aptitude test]. Untersuchungen des Psychologischen Dienstes der Bundeswehr, 42,93-110.
11. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The gfactor: The science of mental ability. West-port, CT: Praeger.
12. Joinson, A (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31,433-438.
13. Klinck, D. (1998). Papier-Bleistift versus computerunterstützte Administration kognitiver Fähigkeitstests: Eine Studie zur Äquivalenzfrage [Paper-pencil vs. computerized administration of cognitive ability test: A study of the equivalence question]. Diagnostica, 44,61-70.
14. Muthén, L. K-, & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers user's guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
15. Preckel, P., & Tkemann, H. (2003). Online- vs. paper-pencil version of a high potential intelligence test Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 131-138. doi:l0.1024/1421-0185.62.2.131
16. Reips, U.-D. (2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. M. Birnbaum (Ed), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89-118). San Diego: Academic Press.
17. Reips, U.-D. (2001). The Web Experimental Psychology Lab: Five years of data collection on the Internet Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33,201-211.
18. Reips, U.-D. (2002). Internet-based psychological experimenting: Five dos and five don'ts. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 241-249. doi:10.1177/08939302020003002 (Pubitemid 36689122)
19. Rost, J., & Carstensen, C. H. (1998). MULTIRA [Computer program]. Kiel: IPN-Institute for Science Education.
20. Stieger, S., Reips, U.-D., & Voracek, M. (2007). Forced-response in online surveys: Bias from reactance and an increase in sex-specific dropout Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58,1653-1660.
21. Von Davier, M. (1997). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit statistics for sparse categorical data-Results of a Monte Carlo study. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2,29-48.
22. Wilhelm, O., & McKnight, P. E. (2002). Ability and achievement testing on the World Wide Web. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 151-180). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.