Intelligence testing using a tablet computer: Experiences with using Q-interactive.

Abstract

Q-interactive is a relatively new technology-based individualized testing platform developed by Pearson, Inc. for use by practitioners as an alternative to the traditional paper-and-pencil method of individualized testing. The potential utility of this type of assessment format for both practicing psychologists and trainers of psychologists is explored, including positive and negative initial reactions to the use of the program and first impressions from a number of first-time users. The implementation of new technology as part of a testing course for graduate students from 3 different graduate programs was initiated, and data were collected over 1.5 years in order to investigate the utility of Q-interactive as a test administration method, determine any potential problems for the use of this testing format, and explore graduate student user impressions. No differences were noted among graduate student ratings of test administration experiences, regardless of the administration method learned initially. Significant differences were found, however, with regard to students' impressions of volunteer client engagement, eagerness to participate, and client enjoyment of testing, with volunteer clients rated as more engaged, more eager, and having more fun when presented with technology-based materials. Interestingly, although the majority of students indicated a strong preference for one administration format over another, the number preferring a technology-enhanced administration was only slightly higher, with most preferring to learn using the paper-and-pencil administration format initially. Implications for practitioners, supervisors, and instructors are discussed.

Computer-enhanced practice: The benefits of computer-assisted assessment in applied clinical practice.

“…Instructors for these courses spend an estimated 10 hr per week on grading and feedback activities alone (Alfonso et al, 2000). Computer-assisted measures may reduce the training time required to learn basic administration procedures compared to paper-and-pencil tests (Clark et al, 2017; Noland, 2017). By adopting computer-assisted assessments in graduate training programs, educators could potentially devote more time to teaching psychometrics and test development, assessment of diverse populations, ethics, and other critical topics that would provide more enriching learning experiences than manually calculating scores again and again.…”

“…Despite the initial costs of adopting computer-assisted assessments, psychologists who update to technologically advanced assessment tools may find long-term cost equivalency or even savings compared to their spending on traditional test kits (Noland, 2017). The relative costs also decrease substantially for multiprovider sites, training sites, and sites that purchase multiple tests.…”

Q-interactive: Training Implications for Accuracy and Technology Integration

“…Snyder ( 2000 ) notes that use of computerized interpretive reports is risky and that examiners may be liable if they include a computer-generated interpretation in a report without adequately evaluating its relevance. Noland ( 2017 ) cautioned that fostering early reliance on the software at the expense of a deeper understanding of standardized test administration in general is unwise.…”

Standardized Assessment Accommodations for Individuals with Intellectual Disability

“…Some research has indicated that using tablets for instruction can improve behaviors and enhance engagement for individuals with ASD (Neely et al, 2013), and that computer administered assessments may be a useful tool with this population (Skerwer et al, 2016). The recent availability of digital assessment tools (Noland, 2017) may prove to be useful for the population of individuals with ASD, though more research is needed in this area and with this specific population.…”