Article citationsMore>>

Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., Holtz, B. C., & Kemp, C. (2003). Web-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Testing of Applicants in a Proctored Setting: Are Personality, Biodata, and Situational Judgment Tests Comparable? Personnel Psychology, 56, 733-752.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00757.x

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Mobile and Nonmobile Assessment in Organizations: Does Proctoring Make a Difference?

  AUTHORS: Matthew S. Castillo, Raymond Doe

  KEYWORDS: Remote Assessment, Proctoring, Mobile Devices

  JOURNAL NAME: Psychology, Vol.8 No.6, April 30, 2017

  ABSTRACT: Advancements in technology have allowed for more efficient methods of testing and assessment. In particular, remotely delivered assessments can be taken on mobile or nonmobile devices in addition to traditional pencil and paper tests. This has led to an increased interest in the comparability of mobile and nonmobile devices on performance outcomes. A variable to consider in performance outcomes on a mobile or nonmobile device is proctoring. There is evidence for both proctored and unproctored conditions leading to better performance outcomes. The present study compared performance on a remotely delivered assessment across mobile and nonmobile devices in proctored and unproctored conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to take a remotely delivered cognitive ability test on either a mobile or nonmobile device in a proctored or unproctored condition. Results indicated that participants tended to perform similarly regardless of the device type or proctoring. Implications are that organizations should consider testing job applicants via mobile devices because performance on a high stakes assessment tends to be similar to testing on a traditional desktop or laptop. Further validation of these results could allow companies to reduce hiring costs by remotely delivering assessments to applicants’ own devices.