Premium
The Magnitude and Extent of Cheating and Response Distortion Effects on Unproctored Internet‐Based Tests of Cognitive Ability and Personality
Author(s) -
Arthur Winfred,
Glaze Ryan M.,
Villado Anton J.,
Taylor Jason E.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00476.x
Subject(s) - cheating , psychology , personality , extant taxon , test (biology) , cognition , social psychology , cognitive test , big five personality traits , the internet , applied psychology , paleontology , evolutionary biology , neuroscience , world wide web , computer science , biology
The use of unproctored internet‐based testing (UIT) for employee selection is quite widespread. Although this mode of testing has advantages over onsite testing, researchers and practitioners continue to be concerned about potential malfeasance (e.g., cheating and response distortion) under high‐stakes conditions. Therefore, the primary objective of the present study was to investigate the magnitude and extent of high‐ and low‐stakes retest effects on the scores of a UIT speeded cognitive ability test and two UIT personality measures. These data permitted inferences about the magnitude and extent of malfeasant responding. The study objectives were accomplished by implementing two within‐subjects design studies (Study 1 N =296; Study 2 N =318) in which test takers first completed the tests as job applicants (high‐stakes) or incumbents (low‐stakes) then as research participants (low‐stakes). For the speeded cognitive ability measure, the pattern of test score differences was more consonant with a psychometric practice effect than a malfeasance explanation. This result is likely due to the speeded nature of the test. And for the UIT personality measures, the pattern of higher high‐stakes scores compared with lower low‐stakes scores is similar to those reported for proctored tests in the extant literature. Thus, our results indicate that the use of a UIT administration does not uniquely threaten personality measures in terms of elevated scores under high‐stakes testing that are higher than those observed for proctored tests in the extant literature.