No description available.

Impetus in recruiting and testing candidates via the Internet results from the popularity of the World Wide Web. There has been a transition from paper-pencil to online testing because of large number of benefits afforded by online testing. Though the benefits of online testing are many, there may be serious implications of testing job applicants in unproctored settings. The focus of this field study was two-fold: (1) to examine differences between the proctored and unproctored online test administrations of the ipsative version of Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32i and (2) to extend online testing research using OPQ32i with a U.S population. A large sample (N = 5223) of archival selection data from a financial company was used, one group was tested in proctored and the other in unproctored settings. Although some statistical differences were found, very small to small effect sizes indicate negligible differences between the proctored and unproctored groups. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted. The scales not only loaded differently from the Great Eight factor model suggested by SHL, but also differently for the two groups, limiting their interpretability. In addition to the limitations and future directions of the study, the practical implications of the results for companies considering unproctored, online personality testing as a part of their selection process are discussed.

The use of unproctored internet-based testing for employee selection is widespread. Although this mode of testing has advantages over onsite testing, researchers and practitioners continue to be concerned about potential malfeasance (e.g., cheating and response distortion) under high-stakes conditions. Therefore, the primary objective of the present study was to investigate potential malfeasance effects on the scores of an unproctored internet-based cognitive ability, and a personality test. This was accomplished by implementing a within-subjects design in which test takers first completed the tests as job applicants (high-stakes) or incumbents (low-stakes) then as research participants (low-stakes). The pattern of cognitive ability test score differences was more consonant with a psychometric practice effect than a malfeasance explanation. Thus, the results suggest that, if present, there was no evidence to indicate that wide- scale or systematic malfeasance unduly affected the test scores. This may have been due to the speeded nature of the test, which was used to preempt the potential for widespread cheating. Additionally, the unproctored personality administration resulted in similar mean shifts and similar proportions of test takers being suspected of distorting their responses as that reported in the extant literature for proctored tests. In their totality, these results suggest that an unproctored internet-based administration does not uniquely threaten personality measures in terms of elevated levels of response distortion compared to proctored measures.

The credibility of unsupervised exams, one of the biggest challenges of e-learning, is currently maintained by proctoring. However, little has been done to determine whether expensive and inconvenient proctoring is necessary. The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine whether the use of security mechanisms, based on the taxonomy of cheating reduction techniques rooted in the fraud triangle theory, can be an effective alternative to proctoring. A quasi-experimental 1 group sequential design was used to answer the research questions whether the format, proctored versus unproctored, order in which the exams are administered, course delivery mode, and instructor make a difference in student performance. The archival scores of 850 Californian community college students on 2 sets of equivalent proctored and unproctored web-based exams in face-to-face, hybrid, and online introductory statistics courses taught by 7 instructors were compared. The format effect was tested with repeated-measures ANOVA; the order, course delivery mode and instructor effects were tested with mixed ANOVA. No significant difference in scores in Set 1, and significantly lower scores on unproctored exams in Set 2 indicated that the used security mechanisms allowed for maintaining the credibility of the exams without proctoring. There was no significant difference in scores across the course delivery modes in both sets and instructors in Set 2, but significant order effect was observed. Further research on order effect was recommended. With the use of the utilized security mechanisms education will get an inexpensive and convenient way to increase the credibility of unsupervised web-based exams, and the society will gain more online college graduates with credentials that reflect their knowledge.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect that mode of test administration could have on computerised assessment results involving proctored and unproctored test conditions. Two South African test instruments, the Learning Potential Computerised Adaptive Test (LPCAT) and the Career Preference Computerised Adaptive Test (CPCAT) were used in the study. A quantitative, quasi-experimental design was used, and a convenience sample for LPCAT (N=82) and CPCAT (N=81) consisted of employees in the hospitality industry. Using a within-participants design, the dependent t-test was used for statistical analysis. For the total group the LPCAT results yielded no statistically significant differences between the mean scores for the two different modes of administration. For the total group the CPCAT results yielded statistically significant differences in the mean scores per mode of administration for five out of 34 dimensions, however, for the majority of the CPCAT sub-dimensions, the mode of administration did not impact on results. It was concluded that mode of administration did not impact on the cognitive test scores and only to a very limited degree on the non-cognitive test scores. Based on the results the null hypotheses for the effect of mode of administration were not rejected. / Industrial & Organisational Psychology / M.A. (Industrial and Organisational Psychology)

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect that mode of test administration could have on computerised assessment results involving proctored and unproctored test conditions. Two South African test instruments, the Learning Potential Computerised Adaptive Test (LPCAT) and the Career Preference Computerised Adaptive Test (CPCAT) were used in the study. A quantitative, quasi-experimental design was used, and a convenience sample for LPCAT (N=82) and CPCAT (N=81) consisted of employees in the hospitality industry. Using a within-participants design, the dependent t-test was used for statistical analysis. For the total group the LPCAT results yielded no statistically significant differences between the mean scores for the two different modes of administration. For the total group the CPCAT results yielded statistically significant differences in the mean scores per mode of administration for five out of 34 dimensions, however, for the majority of the CPCAT sub-dimensions, the mode of administration did not impact on results. It was concluded that mode of administration did not impact on the cognitive test scores and only to a very limited degree on the non-cognitive test scores. Based on the results the null hypotheses for the effect of mode of administration were not rejected. / Industrial and Organisational Psychology / M.A. (Industrial and Organisational Psychology)