Unproctored Internet-Based Tests of Cognitive Ability and Personality: Magnitude of Cheating and Response Distortion

Technology and Assessment in Selection

“…Hense et al (2009) reported an effect size of 0.32 between scores on a proctored and an unproctored job simulation. Arthur et al (2009) found that as many as 7.7% of test takers from the entire distribution of scores cheated on a cognitive ability test that was speeded, when cheating was defined as 1 SEM (standard error of measurement) of the difference in scores from a proctored test and a parallel unproctored test, but observed little evidence of cheating when they compared the mean scores from a high-stakes personality test and a low-stakes research administration of the same test. Lievens & Burke (2011) compared proctored and unproctored test scores on a cognitive ability test consisting of both numerical and verbal items after correcting for regression to the mean and found small d scores across four levels of jobs, some of which were in the opposite direction expected if cheating had occurred (i.e., proctored scores were higher than unproctored scores).…”

Cheating on Unproctored Internet Intelligence Tests: Strategies and Effects

“…We used a randomized two-group experimental design to compare the scores of cheaters (research participants who were instructed to cheat) with those of noncheaters. This design allows for a more thorough assessment of cheating effectiveness than the indirect score change evaluation procedure that has been used in previous studies (e.g., Arthur et al, 2009). …”

“…Second, our between-subjects design might have led to an underestimation of the effect sizes owing to increased error associated with comparing two different groups. Although a within-subjects design has the advantage of greater statistical power (Greenwald, 1976), it might also result in practice effects (Arthur et al, 2009;Lievens & Burke, 2011). Underestimation of the real cheating effect has also occurred if some participants in the control group have cheated.…”

Applicant Perspectives During Selection: A Review Addressing “So What?,” “What’s New?,” and “Where to Next?”

“…Second, organizations could pass information to applicants about the job in a more consistent manner, and applicants would thus have much more information at their disposal before they decide to apply for a job than in the past . In relation to selection, the adoption of Web-based selection platforms (e.g., Arthur, Glaze, Villado, & Taylor, 2009;Dineen, Noe, & Wang, 2004) has also been shown to be more effective in assuring objectivity in the handling of job applications (Konradt et al, 2013) and in saving considerable costs, for both employer and applicant, when compared with more traditional selection methods (Viswesvaran, 2003). The overwhelming benefits of adopting these new Internet technologies in selection have led to their speedy, widespread adoption across different sectors and industries worldwide.…”