IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v67y2018icp67-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unproctored internet-based device-type effects on test scores: The role of working memory

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur, Winfred
  • Keiser, Nathanael L.
  • Hagen, Ellen
  • Traylor, Zach

Abstract

Despite the burgeoning use of unproctored Internet-based testing (UIT) in employment-related assessments, there have been limited theoretical and empirical advancements to explain the effects of technology on test and assessment outcomes. Indeed, this issue is potentially germane to all researchers and practitioners who use UIT assessments in their research and practice. To address this gap, Arthur, Keiser, and Doverspike (2017) advanced the Structural Characteristics/Information Processing (SCIP) framework as a means for psychologically conceptualizing the effect of UIT device-types on test scores. The present study examined the working memory (WM) propositions advanced by the SCIP framework. Participants were randomly assigned to a desktop computer or smartphone condition to complete a general mental ability (GMA), and personality (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness) measure on either a desktop computer (n = 174) or smartphone (n = 173). All participants also completed a WM measure on a desktop computer. The results provide initial support for some of the SCIP framework propositions in that as hypothesized, the WM/GMA, and WM/completion time relationships were stronger for assessments completed on smartphones, compared to desktop computers; in contrast, the WM/personality relationships were weak and did not generally differ across device types. Consequently, this study offers an initial empirical test of the SCIP framework; however, further research is needed to examine additional aspects of the framework, including the role of the other information processing variables (i.e., perceptual speed and visual acuity, psychomotor ability, and selective attention) advanced by the framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur, Winfred & Keiser, Nathanael L. & Hagen, Ellen & Traylor, Zach, 2018. "Unproctored internet-based device-type effects on test scores: The role of working memory," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 67-75.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:67-75
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301988
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morelli, Neil & Potosky, Denise & Arthur, Winfred & Tippins, Nancy, 2017. "A Call for Conceptual Models of Technology in I-O Psychology: An Example From Technology-Based Talent Assessment," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 634-653, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Piotr Tomasz Makowski & Yuya Kajikawa, 2021. "Automation-driven innovation management? Toward Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle," Papers 2103.02395, arXiv.org.
    2. Makowski, Piotr Tomasz & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2021. "Automation-driven innovation management? Toward Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Alexander Simons & Isabell Wohlgenannt & Markus Weinmann & Stefan Fleischer, 2021. "Good gamers, good managers? A proof-of-concept study with Sid Meier’s Civilization," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 957-990, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:67-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.