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.

Abstract
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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) 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
Acknowledgements
Footnotes
References
  • 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