Article

Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent?

Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12A Priory Road, Bristol, UK.
Ergonomics (Impact Factor: 1.56). 10/2008; 51(9):1352-75. DOI: 10.1080/00140130802170387
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

In 1992, Dillon published his critical review of the empirical literature on reading from paper vs. screen. However, the debate concerning the equivalence of computer- and paper-based tasks continues, especially with the growing interest in online assessment. The current paper reviews the literature over the last 15 years and contrasts the results of these more recent studies with Dillon's findings. It is concluded that total equivalence is not possible to achieve, although developments in computer technology, more sophisticated comparative measures and more positive user attitudes have resulted in a continuing move towards achieving this goal. Many paper-based tasks used for assessment or evaluation have been transferred directly onto computers with little regard for any implications. This paper considers equivalence issues between the media by reviewing performance measures. While equivalence seems impossible, the importance of any differences appears specific to the task and required outcomes.

Full-text preview

Available from: princeton.edu
  • Source
    • "As the current research did not examine mortality, findings may not generalize to suicide deaths (cf.,Neuringer, 1962). The prospective study was administered online and is thus limited by administration in an uncontrolled environment (e.g.,Noyes & Garland, 2008). However, caution was taken to control for and use post hoc methods to detect invalid responding. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The interpersonal theory of suicide proposes that acquired capability facilitates transformation of suicidal desire into lethal self-destructive behavior (Joiner, 2005). A new measure, the Acquired Capability With Rehearsal for Suicide Scale (ACWRSS), was devised to capture the key facets of acquired capability—pain tolerance and fearlessness of death—while also incorporating deliberate and active means to increase preparedness for suicide. The factor structure of the ACWRSS was tested using confirmatory factor analysis (n = 611). The 7-item ACWRSS conformed to the hypothesized 3-factor structure, demonstrating excellent fit and good internal consistency (α = .83). Measurement invariance across gender was also demonstrated on configural, metric, and scalar levels. Next, in the first longitudinal study of the association between acquired capability and suicide ideation, intention, and readiness (n = 234), the acquired capability facets prospectively predicted specific phases in the motivational-volitional pathway toward suicide readiness. Moreover, 2 of the acquired capability components mediated the relationship between baseline nonsuicidal self-injury and suicide readiness at follow-up. In an inpatient psychiatric sample (n = 108), the ACWRSS was significantly correlated with prior suicide attempts and thoughts and episodes of nonsuicidal self-injury, and its facets demonstrated differential sensitivity to change. The ACWRSS is the first measure of acquired capability that reliably and validly captures all key facets of this critical component of the interpersonal theory of suicide. Its brevity enhances its utility for both research and clinical settings.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016 · Psychological Assessment
  • Source
    • "Secondly, due to methodological limitations, the results of these studies need to be viewed with caution. Finally, since there are reasons to believe that transferring a scale to an Internet mode may change the instrument (Buchanan, 2001; Buchanan, Johnson, & Goldberg, 2005), the practice of simply adapting a paper and pencil instrument for the Internet mode and assuming that the measurements are equivalent to the original mode is not recommended (Buchanan, 2002; Coles, Cook, & Blake, 2007; Hewson & Charlton, 2005; Noyes & Garland, 2008). This is especially relevant for the MCSDS since responses to SDRS scales have been shown to differ between modes of administration (Dodou & de Winter, 2014; Joinson, 1999; Kaufmann & Reips, 2008; Lautenschlager & Flaherty, 1990; Martin & Nagao, 1989). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Internet surveys have become a very popular research tool. Relatively little attention has, however, been devoted to the possible changes in psychometric properties when measurements are obtained with Internet surveys. The Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) is the most widely used instrument for measuring the tendency to respond in a socially desirable way and is often used to validate other measures. The purpose of the current research is to evaluate the dimensionality and reliability of measurements obtained with the MCSDS and short forms of the scale in an Internet sample of the general public in Iceland. An e-mail invitation was sent to a sample of 1200 panel members drawn from the Social Science Research Institute (SSRI) probability based panel, of those 536 participants completed all items on the MCSDS. Reliability estimates were in line with results from previous studies (a = .81 for the MCSDS data and a ranging from .59 to .75 for short forms). Using confirmatory factor analysis, a good fit was obtained for a one-factor model of measurements obtained with the MCSDS and its short forms (apart from significant chi square values in all cases but one), which generally supports the assumption of unidimensionality.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2015 · Computers in Human Behavior
  • Source
    • "In conclusion, it is worthy to note that despite the advantages of a computerized environment and the above presented argumentations, its superiority over printed presentation is still debated. In their review, addressing the equivalency between the two environments, Noyes and Garland [42] concluded that difference in coping with reading activities in the two environments-computerized and printed-resides in the adequacy of each environment to the specific task in hand and its outcome where for a certain task one environment might be superior to the other. "

    Full-text · Conference Paper · Nov 2014
Show more