•This is an enlightening article for online personality tests. In addition, even though there were psychometric errors with the speeded UIT cognitive ability test this showed that cheating and response distortion were not really a problem compared to the proctored method. I feel these construct tests are much harder to cheat on anyways. SJTs for instance I feel would be much easier to cheat on if provided online. Has any study looked at this?
Some of the articles that try to address cheating in field studies don’t actually assess the cheating behavior. What are some ways that we can directly assess cheating behaviors?
How might the results turn out if the authors directly compared proctored vs. unproctored test administration? And how might the authors more directly assess cheating so that their conclusions about cheating are more valid?
How do you think companies balance the convenience of testing people from their own computers at home with the possibility of them cheating on the tests?
It seems that the variable of the test being time-limited was a way to keep cheating low. So timed internet-tests for cognitive ability and personality are equally valid as computer-based and paper and pencil forms?
So, the results of this study indicate that there is little evidence of malfeasance on UIT ability tests, and significant (but not significantly different) scores on personality tests. This finding reinforces the findings of other studies that people can and do adjust their responses depending on the context when taking personality-related tests. Does this seem to be another piece of evidence that personality tests are vulnerable to distortion and to a greater degree than are cognitive ability tests?
•This is an enlightening article for online personality tests. In addition, even though there were psychometric errors with the speeded UIT cognitive ability test this showed that cheating and response distortion were not really a problem compared to the proctored method. I feel these construct tests are much harder to cheat on anyways. SJTs for instance I feel would be much easier to cheat on if provided online. Has any study looked at this?
ReplyDeleteSome of the articles that try to address cheating in field studies don’t actually assess the cheating behavior. What are some ways that we can directly assess cheating behaviors?
ReplyDeleteHow might the results turn out if the authors directly compared proctored vs. unproctored test administration? And how might the authors more directly assess cheating so that their conclusions about cheating are more valid?
ReplyDeleteHow do you think companies balance the convenience of testing people from their own computers at home with the possibility of them cheating on the tests?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the variable of the test being time-limited was a way to keep cheating low. So timed internet-tests for cognitive ability and personality are equally valid as computer-based and paper and pencil forms?
ReplyDeleteSo, the results of this study indicate that there is little evidence of malfeasance on UIT ability tests, and significant (but not significantly different) scores on personality tests. This finding reinforces the findings of other studies that people can and do adjust their responses depending on the context when taking personality-related tests. Does this seem to be another piece of evidence that personality tests are vulnerable to distortion and to a greater degree than are cognitive ability tests?
ReplyDeleteInteresting methodology. Do you think there were any other issues not mentioned that prevented them from detecting possible malfeasance?
ReplyDelete