Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171
Loughborough University

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/4359

Title: Computer-based vs. paper-based testing: are they the same?
Authors: Al-Amri, Saad
Issue Date: 2007
Publisher: © Loughborough University
Citation: AL-AMRI, S., 2007. Computer-based vs. paper-based testing: are they the same? IN: Khandia, F. (ed.). 11th CAA International Computer Assisted Conference: Proceedings of the Conference on 10th & 11th July 2007 at Loughborough University, Loughborough, pp. 3-13.
Abstract: Comparability studies of paper-based tests and computer-based tests focused mainly on the equivalence of both forms and the contributing factors affecting this concept. There have been several studies in different fields such as education, psychology, ergonomics and L1 reading research (Sawaki, 2001). However, there has been no empirical study so far that has investigated the effect of prior computer familiarity on students’ performance taking L2 tests (Chapelle & Douglas, 2006). Chapelle & Douglas (ibid) also mentioned the significance and lack of differential validity studies and how motivating it is to find out more about performance on computer-based testing. Sawaki (2001) argues that this type of empirical work should employ different methodologies such as eye movement, verbal protocols, post hoc interviews, and questionnaires to reveal useful results. Thus, this ongoing study examines the comparability of paper based tests and the computer based testing in L2 reading context, and the impact of test takers' characteristics, i.e., computer familiarity, computer preference, gender and test taking strategies on students' performance on computer based tests, and sequentially on comparability with paper based tests. 167 Saudi medical students took three reading achievement tests on both paper and computer. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) was devised to measure the students' proficiency and anchor the study tests. The study questionnaires focused on demographic information, participants' computer familiarity and preference of testing mode. The interview examined any change of preference after exposure to CBT. A triangulation of think aloud reports and post hoc interviews were employed to gain insight into strategies used on both testing modes, and to confirm comparability of both modes for validity purposes. The results are likely to reveal some information about the equivalence of both testing modes based on a scientific systematic perspective and have implications for the implementation of computer based reading tests in the context of the medical faculty EAP programme.
Description: This is a conference paper.
Version: Published
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/4359
ISBN: 0953957268
Appears in Collections:CAA Conference

Files associated with this item:

File Description SizeFormat
Al-Amri S o1_formatted.pdf78.84 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


SFX Query

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.