Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences

Published by: Kowsar

An Exploratory Investigation Into Factors Contributing to Computer-Based Testing

Firooz Mahmoodi 1 , * and Rajab Esfandiari 2
Authors Information
1 Curriculum Studies Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, IR Iran
2 English Language Teaching, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, IR Iran
Article information
  • Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences: December 2016, 7 (4); e10168
  • Published Online: December 28, 2016
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: November 1, 2016
  • Accepted: December 21, 2016
  • DOI: 10.5812/ijvlms.10168

To Cite: Mahmoodi F, Esfandiari R. An Exploratory Investigation Into Factors Contributing to Computer-Based Testing, Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. 2016 ; 7(4):e10168. doi: 10.5812/ijvlms.10168.

Copyright © 2016, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion and Conclusion
  • 1. Kolderie T. How Information Technology Can Enable 21st Century Schools. ITIF. 2009;
  • 2. Mahmoudi F, Mola S. Assessing the attainment of 21st century basic skills by engineering students of tabriz university [In persion]. Majallah-i Amuzih-i Muhandisi-i Iran. 2016; 18(69): 19-36
  • 3. Esfandiari R, Sokhanvar F. Modified unified theory of acceptance and use of technology in investigating Iranian language learners’ attitudes toward mobile assisted language learning (MALL). IJVLMS. 2016; 6(4): 93-104
  • 4. Mathara Arachchi S, Dias K, R.S M. A comparison between evaluation of computer based testing and paper based testing for subjects in computer programming. IJSEA. 2014; 5(1): 57-72[DOI]
  • 5. Frand J, Hagner PR, Bates T, Natalicio D, Smith KM, Gunderson M, et al. The information-age mindset. EDUCAUSE review. 2000; 35(5)
  • 6. Davis S, Meyer C. BLUR--the speed of change in the connected economy. British J Admim Mngm. 2000; (22): 20
  • 7. Thomas P, Price B, Paine C, Richards M. Remote electronic examinations: student experiences. British J of Edutl Tech. 2002; 33(5): 537-49[DOI]
  • 8. Russell M, O’Brien E, Bebell D, O’Dwyer L. Students’ beliefs, access, and use of computers in school and at home. 2003;
  • 9. Deutsch T, Herrmann K, Frese T, Sandholzer H. Implementing computer-based assessment – A web-based mock examination changes attitudes. Com Edu. 2012; 58(4): 1068-75[DOI]
  • 10. Scheuermann F, Björnsson JT. He transition to computer-based assessment. 2009;
  • 11. Sim G, Read J, Holfeild P. 2008; : 283-94
  • 12. Higgins J, Russell M, Hoffmann T. Examining the effect of computer-based passage presentation of reading test performance. JTLA. 2005; 3(4): 1-36
  • 13. Clariana R, Wallace P. Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with the test mode effect. Bri J of Edutl Tech. 2002; 33(5): 593-602[DOI]
  • 14. DeRosa J. The Green PDF: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions One Ream at a Time. 2007;
  • 15. Jamil M, Tariq R, Shami P, Zakariys B. Computer-based vs paper-based examinations: Perceptions of university teachers. TOJET. 2012; 11(4): 371-81
  • 16. Cantillon P, Irish B, Sales D. Using computers for assessment in medicine. BMJ. 2004; 329(7466): 606-9[DOI][PubMed]
  • 17. Noyes JM, Garland KJ. Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: are they equivalent? Ergonomics. 2008; 51(9): 1352-75[DOI][PubMed]
  • 18. Dillon A. Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics. 1992; 35(10): 1297-326
  • 19. Buzzetto-More N, Sweat-Guy R, Elobaid M. Reading in a digital age: E-books are students ready for this learning object. IJELL. 2007; 3(1): 239-50
  • 20. Bugbee AC. The Equivalence of Paper-and-Pencil and Computer-Based Testing. J Res computing Edu. 2014; 28(3): 282-99[DOI]
  • 21. Cui JR, Chen Y, Zhang HY. Development and application of an online testing system for clinical nurses. Int J Nurs Sci. 2015; 2(3): 313-6[DOI]
  • 22. Mazzeo J, Harvey AL. The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests. ETS Res Rep Seri. 1988; 1988(1): 27[DOI]
  • 23. Denner S. Automated psychological testing: A review. Brit J Soci Clinc Psychol. 1977; 16(2): 175-9[DOI]
  • 24. Space LG. The computer as psychometrician. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1981; 13(4): 595-606[DOI]
  • 25. Schoenfeldt LF. Guidelines for computer-based psychological tests and interpretations. Comput Human Behav. 1989; 5(1): 13-21[DOI]
  • 26. Green BF. 10Guidelines for Computer Testing. 1991;
  • 27. Akdemir O, Oguz A. Computer-based testing: An alternative for the assessment of Turkish undergraduate students. Comput Edu. 2008; 51(3): 1198-204[DOI]
  • 28. Jimoh RG, Shittu AJK, Kawu YK. Students’ perception of computer based test (CBT) for examining undergraduate chemistry courses. J Em Trends Comput Info Sciences. 2012; 3(2): 125-34
  • 29. Ripley M. 2008; 22
  • 30. Bodmann SM, Robinson DH. Speed and Performance Differences among Computer-Based and Paper-Pencil Tests. J Edu Comput Res. 2004; 31(1): 51-60[DOI]
  • 31. Pommerich M. Developing computerized versions of paper-and-pencil tests: Mode effects for passage-based tests. J Tech, L, Astm. 2004; 2(6)
  • 32. Friedrich S, Bjornsson J. The transition to computer-based assessment new approaches to skills assessment and implications for large-scale testing. OPOCE. 2008;
  • 33. Computer-based vs. Paper-based Testing: Does the test administration mode matter. BAAL. : 101-10
  • 34. Watson B. Key factors affecting conceptual gains from CAL materials. Brit J Eductl Tech. 2001; 32(5): 587-93[DOI]
  • 35. Zandvliet D, Farragher P. A Comparison of Computer-Administered and Written Tests. J Res Computing Educt. 2014; 29(4): 423-38[DOI]
  • 36. O'Quinn L, Corry M. Factors That Deter Faculty from Participation in Distance Education. OJDLA. 2002; 5(4): 4
  • 37. Zellweger F. Faculty adoption of educational technology. EQ. 2007; 30(1): 66-9
  • 38. Schifter C. Perception differences about participating in distance education. OJDLA. 2002; 5(1): 1-14
  • 39. Buck J. Assuring Quality in Distance Education. Hig Edu Eur. 2001; 26(4): 599-2[DOI]
  • 40. Cuban L. Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. 2009;
  • 41. Jones KO, Kelley CA. Teaching Marketing Via the Internet: Lessons Learned and Challenges to Be Met. J Mark Educ Rev. 2015; 13(1): 81-9[DOI]
  • 42. Deepa S, Seth M. An exploratory study of student perception of instructor traits in effective learning. Univ J Manag. 2014; 2(1): 1-8
  • 43. Cozzolino PJ, Blackie LE, Meyers LS. Self-related consequences of death fear and death denial. Death Stud. 2014; 38(6-10): 418-22[DOI][PubMed]
  • 44. Tabachnick BG, Fidel LS. A Practical Approach to using Multivariate Analyses, NK: Pearson. 2001;
  • 45. Jafari SS. Motivated learners and their success in learning a second language. TPLS. 2013; 3(10): 1913[DOI]
  • 46. Russell M, Hoffmann T, Higgins J. NimbleTools. Teach Escept Child. 2009; 42(2): 6-12[DOI]
  • 47. Kuikka M, Kitola M, Laakso MJ. Challenges when introducing electronic exam. Res L Tech. 2014; 22[DOI]
  • 48. Sivin-Kachala J. Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools, 1990-1997. 1998;
  • 49. Pinsoneault TB. Equivalency of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil administered versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Comput Human Behav. 1996; 12(2): 291-300[DOI]
  • 50. Hansen WJ, Doring R, Whitlock LR. Why an examination was slower on-line than on paper. Int J Man-Mach Stud. 1978; 10(5): 507-19[DOI]
  • 51. Vispoel WP, Boo J, Bleiler T. Computerized and paper-and-pencil versions of the rosenberg self-esteem scale: A comparison of psychometric features and respondent preferences. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001; 61(3): 461-74[DOI]
  • 52. Horton SV, Lovitt TC. A comparison of two methods of administering group reading inventories to diverse learners: Computer versus pencil and paper. Remedial Spec Educ. 1994; 15(6): 378-90[DOI]
  • 53. Hallfors D, Khatapoush S, Kadushin C, Watson K, Saxe L. A comparison of paper vs computer-assisted self interview for school alcohol, tobacco, and other drug surveys. Eval Program Plann. 2000; 23(2): 149-55[DOI]
  • 54. Weston TJ. Why faculty did—and did not—integrate instructional software in their undergraduate classrooms. Innov High Educ. 2005; 30(2): 99-115[DOI]
  • 55. Brogden LM, Couros A. Contemplating the virtual campus: Pedagogical and administrative considerations. DKJB. 2002; 68(3): 22-30
  • 56. McCorkle DE, Alexander JF, Reardon J. Integrating business technology and marketing education: Enhancing the diffusion process through technology champions. J Mark Educ. 2001; 23(1): 16-24[DOI]
  • 57. Demirci N. University students' perceptions of web-based vs. Paper-based homework in a general physics course. Online Submission. 2007; 3(1): 29-34
  • 58. Students' readiness for electronic examinations. Proceedings of the 5th wseas international conference on education and educational technology.
  • 59. Stock SE, Davies DK, Wehmeyer ML. Internet-based multimedia tests and surveys for individuals with intellectual disabilities. SED. 2004; 19(4): 43-7
  • 60. Evers A, McCormick CM, Hawley LR, Muñiz J, Balboni G, Bartram D, et al. Testing practices and attitudes toward tests and testing: An international survey. Int J Tst. 2016; : 1-33[DOI]
  • 61. Ling G. Does it matter whether one takes a test on an ipad or a desktop computer? Int J Tst. 2016; 16(4): 352-77[DOI]
  • 62. He L, Min S. Development and validation of a computer adaptive efl test. 2016; [DOI]
  • 63. Biswal PK, Sambho HP, Biswas S. A discrete event system approach to on-line testing of digital circuits with measurement limitation. ESTIJ. 2016; 19(3): 1473-87[DOI]
  • 64. Silva RA, de Souza SRS, de Souza PSL. A systematic review on search based mutation testing. 2016;
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .
Readers' Comments