Dealing with the threats inherent in unproctored Internet testing of cognitive ability: Results from a large-scale operational test program

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 817-824

  Lievens, Filip ^a   Burke, Eugene ^b  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b SHL Group   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 81355160884     PISSN: 09631798     EISSN: 20448325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/096317910X522672     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Arthur, W., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2010). Unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality: The magnitude and extent of cheating and response distortion effects on unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 1-16. doi:
2. Bartram, D. (2008). The advantages and disadvantages of on-line testing. In S. Cartwright, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personnel psychology (pp. 234-260). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
3. Burke, E., Van Someren, G., & Tatham, N. (2006). Verify™ range of ability tests: Technical manual. Thames Ditton : SHL Group plc, Retrieved from
4. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin Company.
5. Chang, H. H., & Ying, Z. (1999). Alpha-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 211-222. doi:
6. Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
7. Farh, J. L., & Werbel, J. D. (1986). Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of validation on self-appraisal leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 527-529. doi:
8. Foster, D. (2009). Secure, online, high-stakes testing: Science fiction or business reality? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 31-34. doi:
9. Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Moriarty, M. O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 373-385. doi:
10. Impara, J. C., & Foster, D. (2006). Item and test development strategies to minimize test fraud. In S. M. Downing, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 91-114). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
11. International Test Commission (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143-172. doi:
12. Jodoin, M. G., Zenisky, A., & Hambleton, R. K. (2006). Comparison of the psychometric properties of several computer-based test designs for credentialing exams with multiple purposes. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 203-220. doi:
13. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275. doi:
14. Nye, C. D., Do, B., Drasgow, F., & Fine, S. (2008). Two-step testing in employee selection: Is score inflation a problem International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 112-120. doi:
15. Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 419-445. doi:
16. Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 2-10. doi:
17. Tippins, N. T., Beatty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O., ... Shepherd, W. (2006). Unproctored Internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59, 189-225. doi:
18. Yi, Q., & Chang, H. H. (2003). Alpha-stratified CAT design with content blocking. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56, 359-378. doi: