Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:54:08.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Guidelines for Practice and Future Directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2017

Edited by
John C. Scott ,
Dave Bartram  and
Douglas H. Reynolds
John C. Scott
Affiliation:
APT Metrics
Dave Bartram
Affiliation:
CEB-SHL
Douglas H. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Development Dimensions International
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Next Generation Technology-Enhanced Assessment
Global Perspectives on Occupational and Workplace Testing
 , pp. 315 - 394
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Association of Test Publishers. (2002). Guidelines for Computer-Based Testing. Author.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2006). Testing on the Internet: Issues, challenges and opportunities in the field of occupational assessment. In Bartram, D. & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Computer-Based Testing and the Internet: Issues and Advances (pp. 13–37). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2011). International issues, standards and guidelines. In Tippins, N. T. & Adler, S. (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Assessment of Talent (pp. 224–250). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bartram, D., & Coyne, I. (1998). Variations in national patterns of testing and test use. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 249–260.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Nye, C. D., Borneman, M. J., Kantrowitz, T. M., Drasgow, F., & Grauer, E. (2011). Proctored versus unproctored Internet tests: Are unproctored noncognitive tests as predictive of job performance? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
British Psychological Society. (2015). Standards in the Design and Delivery of Assessment Centres. Retrieved from www.bps.org.uk/system/files/user-files/Division%20of%20Occupational%20Psychology/public/inf234_assess_centres_final.pdf (accessed June 2, 2015).Google Scholar
Clark, L. A., & Roberts, S. J. (2010). Employer’s use of social networking sites: A socially irresponsible practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 507–525.Google Scholar
Davison, H. K., Maraist, C., & Bing, M. N. (2011). Friend or foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 153–159.Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., & Mattern, K. (2006). New tests and new items: Opportunities and issues. In Bartram, D. & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Computer-Based Testing and the Internet: Issues and Advances (pp. 59–75). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18 (4), 694–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. M. (2006). Internet testing: The examinee perspective. In Bartram, D. & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Computer-Based Testing and the Internet: Issues and Advances (pp. 115–133). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. (2015). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1244–1273.Google Scholar
International Test Commission. (2001). International guidelines on test use. International Journal of Testing, 1(2), 95–114.Google Scholar
International Test Commission. (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(2), 143–171.Google Scholar
International Test Commission. (2010). Test-Takers Guide to Technology-Based Testing. Retrieved from www.intestcom.org/page/21 (accessed).Google Scholar
International Test Commission. (2014). Guidelines on Test Security. Retrieved from www.intestcom.org/page/20 (accessed).Google Scholar
Ion, A., Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., & Ispas, D. (2015, May). Online, Tablet-Based vs. Paper-and-Pencil Administration. In D. Bartram (Chair), Advances in Technology-Based Testing: Implications for Revising the ITC Guidelines. Symposium conducted at the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology Conference, Oslo.Google Scholar
ISO 10667. (2011). Assessment Service Delivery – Procedures and Methods to Assess People in Work and Organizational Settings. Geneva: Author.Google Scholar
ISO/IEC 23988. (2007). Information Technology – A Code of Practice for the Use of Information Technology (IT) in the Delivery of Assessments. Geneva: Author.Google Scholar
Kluemper, D. H., & Rosen, P. A. (2009). Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking web sites. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(6), 567–580..Google Scholar
Landers, R. N., & Sackett, P. R. (2012). Offsetting performance losses due to cheating in unproctored Internet-based testing by increasing the applicant pool. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(2), 220–228.Google Scholar
Laumer, S., Eckhard, A., & Weitzel, T. (2012). Online gaming to find a new job – Examining job seekers’ intention to use serious games as a self-assessment tool. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 26(3), 218–240.Google Scholar
Lievens, F. (2006). The ITC Guidelines on Computer-based and Internet-delivered Testing: Where do we go from here? International Journal of Testing, 6(2), 189–194.Google Scholar
Malheiros, M., Jennett, C., Seager, W., & Sasse, M. A. (2011). Trusting to learn: Trust and privacy issues in serious games. In McCune, J. M., Balacheff, B., Perrig, A., Sadeghi, A.-R, Sasse, A., & Beres, Y. (Eds.), Trust and Trustworthy Computing. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, TRUST 2011 (pp. 116–130). Pittsburgh: Springer.Google Scholar
McDonnell, A. (2016). 60% of employers are peeking into candidates’ social media profiles. Retrieved from http://advice.careerbuilder.com/posts/60-of-employers-are-peeking-into-candidates-social-media-profiles (accessed May 16, 2016).Google Scholar
Melanthiou, Y., Pavlou, F., & Constantinou, E. (2015). The use of social network sites as an e-recruitment tool. Journal of Transnational Management, 20(1), 31–49.Google Scholar
Morelli, N. A., Mahan, R. P., & Illingworth, A. J. (2014). Establishing the measurement equivalence of online selection assessments delivered on mobile versus nonmobile devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 124–138.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., Drasgow, F., Schmit, M., Handler, L., Prifitera, A., Margolis, A., & Velasquez, R. (2004). Psychological testing on the Internet: New problems, old issues. American Psychologist, 59(3), 150–162.Google Scholar
Oakland, T. (2006). Introduction: The International Test Commission and its role in advancing measurement practices and international guidelines. In Bartram, D. & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Computer-Based Testing and the Internet: Issues and Advances (pp. 1–11). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Park, G., Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., Ungar, L. H., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2014). Automatic personality assessment through social media language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 934–952.Google Scholar
Preuss, A., & Lochner, K. (2015). Behind the scores psychometric paradata generated by new technologies and its implications for the ITC Guidelines. In D. Bartram (Chair), Advances in technology-based testing: implications for revising the ITC Guidelines. Symposium conducted at the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology Conference, Oslo.Google Scholar
Rodchua, S., Yiadom-Boakye, G., & Woolsey, R. (2011). Student verification system for online assessments: Bolstering quality and integrity of distance learning. Journal of Industrial Technology, 27(3), 2–8.Google Scholar
Simpson, P., & Jenkins, P. (2015). Gamification and human resources: An overview. Retrieved from www.brighton.ac.uk/_pdf/research/crome/gamification-and-hr-overview-january-2015.pdf (accessed November 30, 2015).Google Scholar
Slovensky, R., & Ross, W. H. (2012). Should human resource managers use social media to screen job applicants? Managerial and legal issues in the USA. info, 14(1), 55–69.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (4th Edition). Retrieved from www.siop.org/_Principles/principlesdefault.aspx (accessed November 5, 2015).Google Scholar
Tippins, N. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2 (1), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tippins, N. T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segal, D. O., & Shepherd, W. (2006). Unproctored Internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59, 189–225.Google Scholar
Tomasi, L. F., Figiel, V. L., & Widener, M. (2009). I’ve got my virtual eye on you: Remote proctors and academic integrity. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 2(1), 31–35.Google Scholar
Wearesocial.com. (2015). Digital, Social and Mobile in 2015. Retrieved from http://wearesocial.net/blog/2015/01/digital-social-mobile-worldwide-2015/ (accessed May 16, 2016).Google Scholar
Youyou, W., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. PNAS, 112(4), 1036–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zickar, M. J., & Lake, C. J. (2011). Practice agenda: Innovative uses of technology- enhanced assessment. In Tippins, N. T. & Adler, S. (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Assessment of Talent (pp. 394–417). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017). Retrieved July 8, 2017 from www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspxGoogle Scholar
Australian Psychological Society. (2007). APS code of ethics. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/APS-Code-of-Ethics.pdf.Google Scholar
Baez, H. B. (2013, January 26). Personality tests in employment selection: Use with caution. Cornell HR Review. Retrieved from www.cornellhrreview.org/personality-tests-in-employment-selection-use-with-caution/.Google Scholar
Bartram, D., & Coyne, I. (1998). Variations in national patterns of testing and test use: The ITC/EFPPA International Survey. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 249–260.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Nye, C. D., Borneman, M. J., Kantrowitz, T. M., Drasgow, F., & Grauer, E. (2011). Proctored versus unproctored Internet tests: Are unproctored noncognitive tests as predictive of job performance? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Begley, S. A., Trankiem, J. Y., & Hansel, S. T. (2014, October 14). Employers using personality tests to vet applicants need cautious “personalities” of their own. The employment beat. Fortune, 189, unpaginated. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/theemploymentbeat/2014/10/30/employers-using-personality-tests-to-vet-applicants-need-cautious-personalities-of-their-own/#74edd68d1ab2.Google Scholar
Buchanan, T. (2007). Personality testing on the Internet. In Joinson, A. N., McKenna, K. Y. A., Postmes, T., Reips, U.-D. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 447–459). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Canadian Psychological Association. (2017). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists. (4th ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from www.cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf. (Accessed September 19, 2017).Google Scholar
Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment. (1996). Statement on the disclosure of test data. American Psychologist, 51, 644–648.Google Scholar
Coyne, I., & Bartram, D. (2006a). Design and development of the ITC Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(2), 133–142. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_3Google Scholar
Coyne, I., & Bartram, D. (2006b). Introduction to the special issue on the ITC guidelines on computer-based and internet-delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 115–119.Google Scholar
Edelstein, L. (1967). The Hippocratic Oath: Text, translation and interpretation. In Temkin, O. & Temkin, C. L. (Eds.), Ludwig Edelstein: Ancient medicine: Selected papers of Ludwig Edelstein (pp. 3–64). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, B., & Levy, P. E. (2015). Using feedback in organizational consulting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The International Taskforce on Assessment Center Guidelines. (2014). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations (6th ed.). Retrieved from www.assessmentcenters.org/Assessmentcenters/media/2014/2014-Final-Presentations/International-AC-Guidelines-6th-Edition-2014.pdf (accessed January 30, 2016).Google Scholar
International Test Commission. (2014). The ITC guidelines on the security of tests, examinations, and other assessments. Version 1.0 Final Version Document reference: ITC-G-TS- 20140706. Published online [www.intestcom.org]. Retrieved from www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_security.pdf (accessed February 7, 2016).Google Scholar
Jeanneret, P. R., & Zedeck, S. (2017). Legal and ethical issues in employee selection. In J. L. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 599–630). New York: Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
Joint Task Force for the Development of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists. (2013). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology (2013). American Psychologist, 68, 791–800.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, T., & Dainis, A. (2014). How secure are unproctored pre-employment tests? Analysis of inconsistent test scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4), 605–616.Google Scholar
Karim, M. N., Kaminsky, S. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and performance in remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 555–572.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J., & Lowman, R. L. (2017). Ethics of employee selection. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 575–598). New York: Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, M., & McFarland, L.A. (2017). Assessment feedback. In J. L. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 406–426). New York: Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (2006). The ethical practice of psychology in organizations (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (2013). Internationalizing multiculturalism: Expanding professional competencies in a globalized world. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (2016). An introduction to consulting psychology: Working with individuals, groups, and organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (in press). Ethical issues and standards in research and applications of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In Ones, D.S., Anderson, N., & Kepir Singagil, H, SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, 2e, V1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lowman, R.L., & Cooper, S.E. (2018). The ethical practice of consulting psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Nowack, K., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearlman, K. (2009). Unproctored internet testing: Practical, legal, and ethical concerns. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poeppelman, T., & Blacksmith, N. (2015). The realities of Internet testing: Security considerations and best practices. TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 53(2), 54–59.Google Scholar
Professional Board for Psychology. (2006). Rules of conduct pertaining specifically to the profession of psychology. Health Professions Act, 1974. South Africa.Google Scholar
Putka, D. J., (2017). Reliability and validity. In Farr, J. L., & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 3–33). New York: Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group).Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. H., & Dickter, D. N. (2017). Technology and employee selection. An overview. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 855–873). New York: Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
Shen, W., Sackett, P.R., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G., Steiner, D.D., …, Cook, M. (2017). Updated perspectives on the international legal environment for selection. In J.L. Farr & N.T. Tippins (Eds.). Handbook of employee selection (pp. 659–677). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).Google Scholar
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N. R., & Hulsherger, U. R. (2010). Employee selection in Europe: Psychotechnics and the forgotten history of modern scientific employee selection. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 921–941). New York: Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group).Google Scholar
Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Retrieved from www.siop.org/_Principles/principles.pdf.Google Scholar
“Summary by language size.” (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size.Google Scholar
Tippins, N., Beaty, 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.Google Scholar
Turkish Psychological Association. (2004). Turkish Psychological Association Ethics Code. Retrieved from https://www.psikolog.org.tr/turkey-code-eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Weber, K., & Dwoskin, E. (2014). Are workplace personality tests fair? Growing use of tests sparks scrutiny amid questions of effectiveness and workplace Retrieved from www.wsj.com/articles/are-workplace-personality-tests-fair-1412044257.Google Scholar
Wunder, R. S., Thomas, L. L., & Luo, Z. (2010) Administering assessments and decision making. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 377–398). New York: Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Brock, D. (2006). Understanding Moore’s Law: Four decades of innovation. Philadelphia, PA: Chemical Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from www.issuu.com/chemheritage/docs/understanding-moores-law?e=1220 (accessed January 7, 2017).Google Scholar
European Commission. (1995). Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046 (accessed January 14, 2017).Google Scholar
European Commission unveils EU-US Privacy Shield. (2016, February 29). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/160229_en.htm (accessed January 14, 2017).Google Scholar
Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Moore, G. (2006). Moore’s law at 40. In Brock, D. (Ed.), Understanding Moore’s Law: Four decades of innovation (pp. 67–84). Philadelphia, PA: Chemical Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from www.issuu.com/chemheritage/docs/understanding-moores-law?e=1220 (accessed January 7, 2017).Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., Drasgow, F., Schmit, M., Handler, L., Prifitera, A., Margolis, A., & Velasquez, R. (2004). Psychological testing on the Internet: New problems, old issues. American Psychologist, 59(3), 150–162.Google Scholar
National Venture Capital Association. (2016). Retrieved from http://nvca.org/pressreleases/58-8-billion-in-venture-capital-invested-across-u-s-in-2015-according-to-the-moneytree-report-2/ (accessed January 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Poushter, J., Bell, J., & Oates, R. (2015). Internet seen as positive influence on education but negative on morality in emerging and developing nations. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×