Equivalence of unproctored internet testing and proctored paper‐and‐pencil testing of the Big Five
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of unproctored Internet‐based testing (IBT) for personality assessment is increasingly popular, especially in personnel selection. Previous studies on its equivalence to traditional proctored paper‐and‐pencil testing (PPT) have used between‐subjects designs, which makes it difficult to separate intergroup effects from format effects, and have shown mixed results. The aim of the present study was to assess the quantitative, qualitative, and auxiliary equivalence of unproctored IBT and proctored PPT of personality, using a within‐sample design. Undergraduate students ( n = 407) completed both an Internet and a paper‐and‐pencil version of a measure of the Big Five, with a 1 to 3 week interval. The proctored paper‐and‐pencil assessment was completed in class and the unproctored Internet assessment was completed at the time and place chosen by the participants. Results showed effect sizes for mean differences to vary from null to small. Skewness and kurtosis indices, reliability coefficients, intercorrelations magnitudes, as well as factor solutions, were highly similar across formats. Respondents did not prefer IBT over PPT on a series of statement about their perceptions and reactions to IBT. In conclusion, results suggest that IBT and PPT of the Big Five personality traits are equivalent, and that the data obtained are comparable across formats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".