dc.description.abstract | Although a volume of literature suggests that the device used to complete unproctored
Internet-based tests (UIT) affects observed test scores, there have been a limited number of
attempts to provide a psychological explanation for why this occurs. One such exception is
Arthur, Keiser, and Doverspike's (2018) Structural Characteristics/Information Processing
(SCIP) model, which provides a psychological explanation regarding the conditions under which
one would expect UIT device types (e.g., desktop computer, smartphone, tablet) to affect test
scores. The model proposes that systematic error is introduced via construct-irrelevant cognitive
load attributable to the additional information-processing demands elicited by the UIT device's
structural characteristics. While conceptually sound, there has been only one empirical
examination of the propositions advanced by the model to date. Consequently, the primary
objective of the present study was to test the SCIP model's propositions regarding selective
attention, the information-processing demand elicited by permissibility, the associated structural
characteristic of UIT devices.
Two hundred sixty-one participants completed measures of general mental ability
(GMA), personality, and selective attention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two
conditions differing in terms of the testing (1) environment and (2) device used to complete the
GMA test and personality assessment (i.e., a busy, outdoor location [smartphone condition] or a
quiet, indoor location [desktop condition]). Scores on the GMA test did not differ as a function
of the testing device and environment, however, in accordance with the tenets of the SCIP
model, it appears that test takers in the smartphone condition experienced a greater degree of
selective-attention demands while completing the GMA test. All of the observed results are
interpreted within the context of using an undergraduate student sample, low testing stakes, and
random assignment instead of the self-selection of participants into conditions. Implications and
limitations of the present study as well as recommendations for future research are discussed. | en |