Reactions to Computerized Testing in Selection Contexts

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly using computerized tests (e.g., multimedia, web-based, computer adaptive testing) in selection systems. A 2 (mode of presentation: paper-andpencil -computerized) Â 2 (technical level of the job: high technical job-low technical job) Â 2 (selection decision: rejected or selected) between subjects design was used to assess proposed relationships between reactions to tests, their antecedents, and their consequences. While test-takers' post-test perceptions did not significantly differ as a result of mode of administration, computer anxiety and experience with computing were important factors in performing successfully. Significant relationships were found between post-feedback reactions and test-takers' intentions. The discussion highlights implications for implementing computerized selection tools.

Perceived fairness of web‐based applicant screening procedures: Weighing the rules of justice and the role of individual differences

“…In general, those with more job application experience tended to weigh the ability to provide additional information and ability to appeal more heavily in assessing fairness perceptions. Perhaps an exposure to a variety of screening procedures makes these features more salient to experienced job seekers in assessing fairness (Gilliland, 1993;Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003).…”

“…Studies have focused on individuals' trust in and use of e-commerce (Gefen et al, 2003;Tan & Thoen, 2002) or in their choice of automation or human control (Muir, 1994). This work generally suggests that trust and perceived fairness emanate from individuals' familiarity or comfort with the medium (Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003), perceptions of systems reliability (Hertzum, Andersen, Andersen, & Hansen, 2002;Muir, 1994), and the control mechanisms put in place to guard against system deficiencies or operator self-interest (Gefen et al, 2003;Tan & Thoen, 2002). For example, Tan and Thoen developed a model of trust in electronic commerce that suggests that individuals will feel comfortable engaging in a transaction if trust in the other party and trust in control mechanisms exceed one's trust threshold, where lower trust thresholds are associated with a history of satisfactory and reliable transactions.…”

“…Specifically, trust in technology and trust in virtual agents has consistently been predicted by familiarity, such that individuals who are more comfortable, familiar, and efficacious with regards to use of computerized or automated mediums are likely to see such mediums as fairer than those who are less familiar with these mediums (e.g., Reynolds & Lin, 2003;Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003).…”

Factors affecting the effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems

“…Still other research revealed that test mode has no impact on individuals' reactions to tests (e.g., Meade et al, 2007;Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003). The findings of yet other studies (e.g., Oostrom, Born, Serlie, & Van Der Molen, 2010;Potosky & Bobko, 2004;Sylva & Mol, 2009;Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003) showed that reactions to computerized tests depend on a host of other factors (e.g., computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, test-taking experience or self-efficacy).…”

Job applicants’ attitudes towards cognitive ability and personality testing

“…Online testing is no longer a novelty and many people are frequently exposed to tests on Internet portals in academic and employment settings (Anderson, 2003;Reynolds & Lin, 2003;Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003). This includes the online administration of personality and cognitive ability tests (Baron & Austin, 2000;Reynolds, Sinar & McClough, 2000).…”