| dc.description.abstract | The use of unproctored internet-based testing for employee selection is
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 potential malfeasance effects on the
scores of an unproctored internet-based cognitive ability, and a personality test. This
was accomplished by implementing a within-subjects design in which test takers first
completed the tests as job applicants (high-stakes) or incumbents (low-stakes) then as
research participants (low-stakes). The pattern of cognitive ability test score differences
was more consonant with a psychometric practice effect than a malfeasance explanation.
Thus, the results suggest that, if present, there was no evidence to indicate that wide-
scale or systematic malfeasance unduly affected the test scores. This may have been due
to the speeded nature of the test, which was used to preempt the potential for widespread
cheating. Additionally, the unproctored personality administration resulted in similar
mean shifts and similar proportions of test takers being suspected of distorting their responses as that reported in the extant literature for proctored tests. In their totality,
these results suggest that an unproctored internet-based administration does not uniquely
threaten personality measures in terms of elevated levels of response distortion
compared to proctored measures. | en |
