Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:15:33.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research on Unproctored Internet Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Ben-Roy Do
Ben-Roy Do*
Affiliation:
Roosevelt University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, Roosevelt University, 1400 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Schaumburg, IL 60173
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 49 - 51
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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, Roosevelt University.

References

Baird, J. S. Jr. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515–522.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Fallon, J. D., Shepherd, W. J., & Barrett, C. (2002, April). Proctored versus unproctored web-based administration of a cognitive ability test. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Chapman, D. S., & Webster, J. (2003). The use of technologies in the recruiting, screening, and selection processes for job candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 113–120.Google Scholar
Chapman, K. J., Davis, R., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2004). Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 236–249.Google Scholar
Do, B.-R., Brummel, B. J., Chuah, S. C., & Drasgow, F. (2006, May). Item preknowledge on test performance and item confidence. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Do, B.-R., Shepherd, W., & Drasgow, F. (2005, April). Measurement equivalence across proctored versus unproctored testing with job incumbents. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985). Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 662–680.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., & Shank, D. M. (1985). Personal work ethic and effort training affect cheating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 520–528.10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.520Google Scholar
Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (2002). It’s wrong, but everybody does it: Academic dishonesty among high school and college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 209–228.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. B. (1981). Achievement motivation and success: Does the end justify the means? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 374–375.Google Scholar
Karlins, M., Michaels, C., & Podlogar, S. (1988). An empirical investigation of actual cheating in a large sample of undergraduates. Research in Higher Education, 29, 359–364.Google Scholar
McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry, 62, 365–374.Google Scholar
Nye, C., Do, B.-R., Drasgow, F., & Fine, S. (2008). Two-step testing in employee selection: Is score inflation a problem? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 112–120.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., Carr, J. Z., & Schmidt, A. M. (2001, April). The medium and the message: Dual effects of supervision and web-based testing on measurement equivalence for ability testing and personality measures. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Raju, N. S. (1999). DFITD4: A Fortran program for calculating dichotomous DIF/DTF [Computer program]. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Shepherd, W., Do, B.-R., & Drasgow, F. (2003). Equivalence of proctored versus unproctored online pre-employment assessments. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Smith, C. P., Ryan, E. R., & Diggins, D. R. (1972). Moral decision making: Cheating on examinations. Journal of Personality, 40, 640–660.Google Scholar
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, S. C., & Drasgow, F. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 497–508.Google Scholar
Stevens, G. E. & Stevens, F. W. (1987). Ethical inclinations of tomorrow’s managers revisited: How and why students cheat. Journal of Education for Business, 61, 24–29.Google Scholar
Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.10.1023/A:1018724900565Google Scholar