Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:01:20.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where Is the Unproctored Internet Testing Train Headed Now?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Nancy T. Tippins
Nancy T. Tippins*
Affiliation:
Valtera Corporation
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Valtera Corporation, 301 North Main St., Suite 1103, Greenville, SC 29601
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

So, where is unproctored Internet testing (UIT) now? What has happened since 2006? Is the train stalled right outside the station, waiting on answers? Is it lurching forward, making slow but sure progress? Or, is it simply chugging in circles? The original focal article (Tippins, 2009) and the 13 subsequent commentaries are not comprehensive summaries of all the research and thought about UIT and can hardly be considered definitive as a collective body of work. In total, these articles probably do not convince many of the doubters. However, the articles collectively highlight the critical issues faced in UIT, suggest new ideas, and give guidance for the future, indicating the UIT train is at least moving. In this concluding article of the UIT series, I try to summarize where I believe we are in 2009 in terms of the important points that must be taken into consideration when contemplating UIT and emerging questions that industrial and organizational (I–O) psychologists must answer.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 69 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

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

Arthur, W. A. Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2009). Unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality: Magnitude of cheating and response distortion. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 39–45.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01105.xGoogle Scholar
Bartram, D. (2009). The International Test Commission guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 11–13.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01098.xGoogle Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Dawson, C. R., Fallaw, S. S., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2009). Recovering the scientist-practitioner model: How I-Os should respond to unproctered Internet testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 58–63.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01109.xGoogle Scholar
Burke, E. (2009). Preserving the integrity of online testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 35–38.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01104.xGoogle Scholar
Drasgow, F., Nye, C. D., Guo, J., & Tay, L. (2009). Cheating on Proctored Tests: The Other Side of the Unproctored Debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 46–48.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01106.xGoogle Scholar
Foster, D. (2009). Secure, online, high-stakes testing: Science fiction or business reality? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 31–34.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01103.xGoogle Scholar
Gibby, R. E., Ispas, D., McCloy, R. A., & Biga, A. (2009). Moving beyond the challenges to make unproctored Internet testing a reality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 64–68.Google Scholar
Hense, R., Golden, J., & Burnett, J. (2009). Making the case for unproctored Internet testing: Do the rewards outweigh the risks? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 20–23.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01100.xGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. A. (2009). UIT or not UIT? That is not the only question. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 52–57.Google Scholar
Kaminski, K. A., & Hemingway, M. A. (2009). To proctor or not to proctor? Balancing business needs with validity in online assessment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 24–26.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01101.xGoogle Scholar
Pearlman, K. (2009). Unproctored Internet testing: Practical, legal, and ethical concerns. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 14–19.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01099.xGoogle Scholar
Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 2–10.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01097.xGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. A. & Morrison, J. D. Jr. (2009). Unproctored online testing: Environmental conditions and validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 27–30.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01102.xGoogle Scholar