Internet-based Testing: A Solution for the New Normal
Authors
-
Principal Assessment Designer, ACT, 500 ACT Dr, Iowa City, IA, 52243
Thomas Langenfeld
Keywords:
Remote Proctoring, Remote Online Proctoring, Internet-based Testing, Computer-based TestingAbstract
The turn to online learning and training programs as a response to challenging times (i.e., the Covid-19 crisis) necessitated the need for internet-based testing solutions. Researchers generally have found that Unproctored Internet Testing (UIT) for high-stakes cognitive ability assessments results in higher scores than proctored assessments. Live or Artificial Intelligence (AI) remote proctoring are possible solutions for the secure administrations. Vendors have developed live and AI remote proctoring with service levels ranging from minimal to top-tier security. Added security comes with a price, and these services quickly become expensive. Institutions need to identify a level of security that is commensurate with the stakes and uses of test scores. Researchers are finding that combining live remote proctoring with specific design features minimizes cheating and other unauthorized behaviors. As institutions consider live remote proctoring, they need to be cognizant of not only ensuring security, but also ensuring the opportunity to test for all students.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
References
ACT, Inc. (2018). ACT Privacy Policy. https://www.act.org/content/ act/en/privacy-policy.html.
Arthur, W., Glaze, R.M., Villado, A.J., & Taylor, J.E. (2010). The magnitude and extent of cheating and response distortion effects on unproctored internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18 (1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00476.x
Association of Test Publishers (ATP), (2020). Testing guidelines: Guidelines for computer-based testing. Available from: https://www.testpublishers.org/assets/documents/ CBTGuidelines.pdf
Bartram, D. (2006). Testing on the internet: Issues, challenges and opportunities in the field of occupational assessment. In D. Bartram and R. Hambleton (Eds.), Computer-based testing and the internet: Issues and advances (pp. 13-37). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_2
Bartram, D. (2009). Commentaries: The international test commission guidelines on computer-based and internet-delivered testing. Industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 11-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01098.x
Berkey, D., & Halfond, J. (2015, July 20). Cheating, student authentication and proctoring in online programs. New England Journal of Higher Education. Available from: https://nebhe.org/journal/cheating-student-authenticationand-proctoring-in-online-programs/
Bloemers, W., Oud, A., & van Dam, K. (2016). Cheating on unproctored internet intelligence tests: Strategies and effects. Personal Assessment and Decisions, 2, 21-29. https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2016.003
Boykin, A.W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. Arlington, VA: ASCD.
Foster, D. (2009). Secure, online, high-stakes testing: Science fiction or business reality? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2 (1), 31-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01103.x
Foster, D. & Layman, H. (2013). Online proctoring systems compared. Available from: https://www.caveon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Online-Proctoring-SystemsCompared-Mar-13-2013.pdf
Gibby, R.E., Ispas, D., McCloy, R.A., & Biga, A. (2009). Moving beyond the challenge to make unproctored internet testing a reality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 64-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01110.x
International Test Commission (ITC). (2013). ITC Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet Delivered Testing. Available from: https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_ computer_based_testing.pdf
Kagan, O. (2019, August 27). Insights on video surveillance and data protection. Fox Rothschild Attorneys at Law. Available from: https://dataprivacy.foxrothschild.com/2019/08/articles/general-privacy-data-security-news-developments/insights-on-video-surveillance-and-data-protection/
Karim, M.N., Kaminsky, S.E., & Behrend, T.S. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and performance in remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study. Journal of Business Psychology, 29, 555-572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869014-9343-z
Lieberman, M. (2018, October 10). Exam proctoring for online students hasn’t yet transformed. Inside Higher Education. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/10/10/online-studentsexperiencewide-range-proctoring-situations-tech.
Lievens, F., & Burke, E. (2011). Dealing with the threats inherent in unproctored internet testing of cognitive ability: Results from a large-scale occupational test program. Journal of Occupational and Organization Psychology, 84, 817-824. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X522672
Lilley, M., Meere, J., & Barker, T. (2016). Remote live invigilation: A pilot study. Journal of interactive media in education, 1, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.408
McPartland, D., Dyer, J., Schoenig, R., & Nicosia, R. (2020, April 3). Pandemic Response: How to Promote Academic Integrity and Achieve Valid Results. Webinar Presentation. Available from: https://www.nctatesting.org/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=51&Itemid=115&year=2020&month=04&day=03&title=online-testing-in-a-pandemic-how-to-prom ote-academic-integrity-and-achieve-valid results&uid=3f0 402b5333a41d34ab59b4c527bee0c
Moore, R, & Vitale, D. (2018). High school students access to and use of technology at home and in school. ACT Center for Equity in Learning. Available from: https://equityinlearning.act.org/research-doc/high-school-students-access-to-anduseof-technology-at-home-and-in-school/
Moore, R., Vitale, D., & Stawinoga, N. (2018). The digital divide and educational equity: A look at students with very limited access to electronic devices at home. ACT Center for Equity in Learning. Available from: https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R1698-digitaldivide2018-08.pdf
ProctorTrack by Verificient (2020). Four popular myths about remotely proctored exams debunked. Available from: https://www.proctortrack.com/blog/article/4-popularmythsabout-remotely-proctored-exams-debunked/
Reynolds, D.H., Wasko, L.E., Sinar, E.F., Raymark, P.H., &Jones, J.A. (2009). UIT or Not UIT? That is not the only question. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 52-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01108.x
Rosenboom, V., & Blagg, K. (2018). Disconnected from higher education: How geography and internet speed limit access to higher education. Available from: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/disconnected-higher-education
Steger, D., Schroeders, U., & Gnambs, T. (2020). A meta-analysis of test scores in proctored and unproctored ability assessments. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 174-184. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000494
Stowell, J. R., & Bennett, D. (2010). Effects of online testing on student exam performance and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.2.b
Tippins, N.T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W.M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D.O., & Shepherd, W. (2006). Unproctored internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59, 189-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00909.x
Weiner, J.A., & Hurtz, G.M. (2017). A comparative study of online remote proctoring versus onsite proctored highstakes exams. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 18 (1), 13-20.