A comparison of computerized and conventional administration of the German versions of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Carroll Rating Scale for Depression

The ABCs of computerized naming: Equivalency, reliability, and predictive validity of a computerized rapid automatized naming (RAN) task

“…Equivalency has been found when converting many traditional paper-based tests to computer-based versions across many areas of psychology. To name just a few examples, equivalency between the paper-pencil and computer-based modes of administration has been observed for; the Harrington-O'Shea Career DecisionMaking System (Kapes and Vansickle, 1992), the Differential Aptitude Tests (Alkhandher et al, 1998), four work-related non-cognitive psychological measures (King and Miles, 1995), The Eysenck Personality Questionniare and the Carroll Rating Scale for Depression (Merten and Ruch, 1996). In addition, computerized versions of self-evaluative ratings of mood have been shown to be just as reliable as the respective paper-pencil versions (Glaze and Cox, 1991;Tseng et al, 1997).…”

Equivalence of computerized and conventional versions of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)

“…The Preference for Mode of Administration Questionnaire (PMAQ) was originally designed by Merten (1994) and published by Merten and Ruch (1996). The PMAQ was originally a 9-item questionnaire designed to determine an individual's preference for method of assessment (conventional vs. computer).…”

The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative affect

“…Research must be conducted to determine and examine any differences that may exist across modalities. (Heinssen, Glass, & Knight, 1987) paper-and-pencil only; BOl (Beck, 1967b); STAI (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) George, Lankford, and Wilson (1992) Glaze and Cox (1991) Kobak, Reynolds, and Greist (1993) Lukin, Dowd, Plake, and Kraft (1985) Merten and Ruch (1996) Ogles, France, Lunnen, Bell, and Goldfarb (1998) Peterson, Johannsson, and Carlsson (1996) Rosenfeld, Dar, Anderson, Kobak, and Greist (1992) Schulenberg ( (Cox, Holden, & Sagovsky, 1987) HAS (Hamilton, 1959(Hamilton, , 1967; CHAS (Kobak, Reynolds, & Greist, 1990) TRS (Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1984); STAI; BOl (Beck, 1967a) EPQ-R (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991); CRS (Carroll, Feinberg, Smouse, Rawson, & Greden, 1981) BOl (Beck, 1978); BSD (Hakstian & McLean, 1989); CES-D (Radloff, 1977); CCES-D BOl (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961); MACL (Sjoberg, Svensson, & Persson, 1979); SP1Q (Rydberg & Hoghielm, 1974), Y-BOCS (Goodman et al, 1989a(Goodman et al, , 1989b BOl-ll (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996); C-BOl-ll; PMAQ (Merten & Ruch, 1996); CAYS BOl (Beck & Steer, 1987), computer format; BHS (Beck & Steer, 1988) Concerning the direction of future research, if computer aversion potentially raises problems, as the literature suggests, it seems clear that more must be learned about the concept of computer aversion. Consideration must be given to the samples used in this research, as well as the research designs used.…”