Validation of an Automated 16PF Administration Procedure

Abstract

Examined the effects of a computer-based administration procedure on reliability and validity of a personality questionnaire. Utilizing a counterbalanced repeated-measures design, Form A of the 16PF was administered to 80 undergraduates who had been randomly assigned to either computer-computer, computer-booklet, booklet-computer, or booklet-booklet administration conditions. Subjects also completed a self-report anxiety measure before and after each administration of the 16PF. Multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in score reliability, validity, or self-reported anxiety among the four administration conditions. Small yet significant differences were noted with respect to ratings of the assessment experience. Subjects in the two groups which were exposed to both administration formats rated the computer procedure as more positive in comparison to the booklet format. Due to the student sample, replication of these findings with treatment-seeking clients is needed.

The personality of UK managers: 16PF norms for short‐listed applicants

“…Previous research (e.g. Harrell & Lombardo, 1984) has suggested that automation of the l6PF has no significant effect on scale score retest reliabilities or validities.…”

Technological Innovations in Data Collection: Acceptance, Data Quality and Costs

“…The growing popularity of computerized psychological testing has led to several studies that assess the equivalence of conventional psychological tests and their computerized versions. In general, no differences between computer assisted and paper-and-pencil tests were found in reliability and validity of the tests (Harrel & Lombardo, 1984;Parks et al, 1985). One study (Canoune & Leyhe, 1985) found that questions involving social pressure (conformity, evaluation) were answered differently in computerized and face-to-face questioning, with the face-to-face version leading to more social desirable answers and more tension reported by respondents, but other studies (Koson et al, 1970;Rezmovic, 1977) did not find this effect.…”

Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing Tailored for Special Populations and Topics

“…The effect of computerization on the quality of the data in self-administered questionnaires has also been a concern in psychological testing. In general, no differences between computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil tests were found in test reliability and validity (Harrel and Lombardo 1984;Parks, Mead, and Johnson 1985). This is confirmed by a meta-analysis of twentynine studies comparing conventional and computerized cognitive tests (Mead and Drasgow 1993).…”