The cognitive equivalence of reading comprehension test items via computerized and paper-and-pencil administration

被引:8
作者
Kobrin, JL
Young, JW
机构
[1] Coll Board, Res & Dev, New York, NY 10023 USA
[2] Rutgers State Univ, Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1207/S15324818AME1602_2
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
The cognitive equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil reading comprehension tests was investigated using verbal protocol analysis. It was hypothesized that participants taking the computerized tests would have a greater load on their working memory, which would affect their cognitive processes and test-taking strategies. The results indicated that the only significant difference between the computerized and paper-and-pencil tests was in the frequency of identifying important information in the passage. There was no evidence of any differences in search strategies or in overall test-taking strategies on the computerized and paper-and-pencil tests. The results suggest that computerized and paper-and-pencil reading comprehension tests may be more cognitively similar than originally thought. In fact, some of the findings indicate that computerized tests may encourage more construct-relevant behaviors than paper-and-pencil tests.
引用
收藏
页码:115 / 140
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
[11]   Equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized self-report surveys in older adults [J].
Weigold, Arne ;
Weigold, Ingrid K. ;
Drakeford, Naomi M. ;
Dykema, Stephanie A. ;
Smith, Charity A. .
COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2016, 54 :407-413
[12]   The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative affect [J].
Stefan E. Schulenberg ;
Barbara A. Yutrzenka .
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 1999, 31 :315-321
[13]   Comparison of paper-and-pencil vs. computerized administration of the Leistungsprufsystem (LPS) [J].
Troche, S ;
Rammstedt, B ;
Rammsayer, T .
DIAGNOSTICA, 2002, 48 (03) :115-120
[14]   THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTERIZED VERSUS PAPER-AND-PENCIL ADMINISTRATION ON MEASURES OF NEGATIVE AFFECT [J].
GEORGE, CE ;
LANKFORD, JS ;
WILSON, SE .
COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 1992, 8 (2-3) :203-209
[15]   Reliability, equivalence and respondent preference of computerized versus paper-and-pencil mental health questionnaires [J].
Wijndaele, K. ;
Matton, L. ;
Duvigneaud, N. ;
Lefevre, J. ;
Duquet, W. ;
Thomis, M. ;
De Bourdeaudhuij, I. ;
Philippaerts, R. .
COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2007, 23 (04) :1958-1970
[16]   Equivalence and predictive validity of paper-and-pencil and computerized adaptive formats of the Differential Aptitude Tests [J].
Alkhadher, O ;
Clarke, DD ;
Anderson, N .
JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 71 :205-217
[17]   Internet Administration of the Paper-and-Pencil Gifted Rating Scale: Assessing Psychometric Equivalence [J].
Yarnell, Jordy B. ;
Pfeiffer, Steven I. .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT, 2015, 33 (06) :534-543
[18]   Sensitivity of Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Measures to Post-Concussion Cognitive Changes [J].
Meyer, J. ;
Arnett, P. .
ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2015, 30 (06) :514-514
[19]   Investigating the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Paper-and-Pencil and a Computerized Cognitive Test Battery for Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury [J].
Sicard, Veronik ;
Stephenson, David D. ;
Hergert, Danielle C. ;
Dodd, Andrew B. ;
Robertson-Benta, Cidney R. ;
Reddy, Sharvani Pabbathi ;
Yeates, Keith Owen ;
Cromer, Jason A. ;
Meier, Timothy B. ;
Campbell, Richard A. ;
Phillips, John P. ;
Sapien, Robert E. ;
Mayer, Andrew R. .
NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 36 (06) :565-577
[20]   ASSESSING THE EQUIVALENCE OF PAPER-AND-PENCIL VS. COMPUTERIZED TESTS: DEMONSTRATION OF A PROMISING METHODOLOGY. [J].
Wilson, F.Robert ;
Genco, Kathleen T. ;
Yager, Geoffrey G. .
Computers in Human Behavior, 1985, 1 (3-4) :265-275