Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:40:10.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recovering the Scientist–Practitioner Model: How IOs Should Respond to Unproctored Internet Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

James C. Beaty ,
Craig R. Dawson ,
Sarah S. Fallaw  and
Tracy M. Kantrowitz
James C. Beaty*
Affiliation:
PreVisor
Craig R. Dawson
Affiliation:
PreVisor
Sarah S. Fallaw
Affiliation:
PreVisor
Tracy M. Kantrowitz
Affiliation:
PreVisor
*
E-mail: jbeaty@previsor.com, Address: 1805 Old Alabama Road, Suite 150, Roswell, GA 30076
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. 58 - 63
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

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060Google 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–Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Grauer, E., & Davis, J. (2006, May). Unproctored Internet testing: Important questions and empirical answers. In Beaty, J. C. (Chair), Unproctored Internet testing: What do the data say? Practitioner forum conducted at the 21st annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Nye, C. D., Borneman, M. J., Drasgow, F., Kantrowitz, T., & Grauer, E. (under review). Proctored vs. unproctored test: Are unproctored tests as predictive of job performance? Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Do, B., Shepherd, W. J., & 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., 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
Fallaw, S. S., Muñoz, C. S., & Dawson, C. R. (2005, April). Administering online testing: A benchmarking study. Poster presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Fallaw, S. S., Solomonson, A. L., & McClelland, L. (accepted in press). Current trends in assessment use: A multi-organizational survey. Poster submitted for the 24th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.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
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
Nye, C. D., Do, B., Drasgow, F., & Fine, S. (2008). Two-step testing in employee selection: Is score inflation a problem? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 112–120.10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00416.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
Sinar, E. F., & Wasko, L. E. (2008). Further exploring the nature and impact of differing test environments. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.Google 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
Tippins, N. T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O., et al. (2006). Unproctored Internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59, 189–225.10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00909.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