A Comparison of Traditional and Computer-Based Methods of Teaching Students to Administer Individual Intelligence Tests

Teaching standardized test administration using virtual examinees: Rationale, validity, and future directions.

“…Kohn urged the scholarly and corporate community to, “instead of avoiding technology, [get] out in front, get some money behind it and create the tools to teach effectively” (as cited in DeAngelis, 2009, p. 49). Nearly 30 years ago it was insightfully noted that “development of appropriate software could indeed be the major reason why inexpensive computers may not be widely used in the near future [for simulations of standardized test administration]” (Johnson et al, 1982, pp. 62–63).…”

“…“Just as it is unrealistic to expect every professor who teaches a course to write a textbook for the course, it is also unrealistic to expect every computer user to write [his or her] own software” (Johnson et al, 1982, p. 63). Because most professors will not have the time or ability to single-handedly produce simulations, this author hopes that the preliminary evidence for the concept will advance efforts to make simulations more widely available.…”

“…Traditional approaches to teaching standardized tests often involve demonstrations, lectures, and students administering practice tests (Belk et al, 2002; Slate et al, 1991). Such approaches have been criticized because of either considerably delayed or no feedback based on the learners actions (Belk et al, 2002; Johnson et al, 1982). The widespread errors made by students even after they have passed a graduate-level assessment class and also by professionals in the field brings into question whether the traditional approach meets international testing standards and if supervision during traditional training is adequate.…”

“…Kaslow et al (2009) identified simulations as useful tools for evaluating competence of assessment skills. Only a few such evaluations have been performed but those evaluations yielded positive results (Hall, 1999; Johnson et al, 1982) or at least proved not to be detrimental (Foster, 1983).…”

“…First, they focused largely on scoring errors rather than administration errors. Second, they examined only 11 (Hall, 1999), four (Foster, 1983), or two (Johnson, Willis, & Danley, 1982) subtests. Third, they did not simulate the real world (see Fox et al, 2009, and Hoven, 1999, for definitions of simulation) but rather presented more of a computerized testing approach in which the user chose from a few prespecified options with immediate feedback from the computer about the correctness of the user’s choice.…”