The effect of format and device on the performance and usability of web-based questionnaires

References

• Bridgeman, B., Lennon, M. L., & Jackenthal, A. (2003). Effects of screen size, screen resolution, and display rate on computer-based test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(3), 191–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper, M. P. (2000). Usability evaluation of computer assisted survey instruments. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 384–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web questionnaire design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 230–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huff, K. C. (2015). The comparison of mobile devices to computers for web-based assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 208–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huff, K. C., Cline, M., & Guynes, C. S. (2012). Web-based testing: Exploring the relationship between hardware usability and test performance. American Journal of Business Education, 5(2), 179–185.
   Google Scholar
• Květon, P., Jelínek, M., Vobořil, D., & Klimusová, H. (2007). Computer-based tests: The impact of test design and problem of equivalency. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 32–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeson, H. V. (2006). The mode effect: A literature review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Maeda, H. (2015). Response option configuration of online administered Likert scales. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(1), 15–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead, A. D., & Drasgo, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morelli, N. A., Mahan, R. P., & Illingworth, A. J. (2014). Establishing the measurement equivalence of online selection assessments delivered on mobile versus non-mobile devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 124–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, S. A., Miller, L. T., Erikson, H. B., Norman, M. F., & McCorkle, R. (2001). Development and validation of a telephone questionnaire to characterize lymphedema in women treated for breast cancer. Physical Therapy, 81(6), 1192–1205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potosky, D. (2008). A conceptual framework for the role of the administration medium in the personnel assessment process. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 629–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez, C. A., & Branaghan, R. J. (2011). Turning to learn: Screen orientation and reasoning with small devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 793–797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeders, U., & Wilhelm, O. (2010). Testing reasoning ability with handheld computers, notebooks, and paper and pencil. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 284–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, T. W. (1995). Little things matter: A sampler of how differences in questionnaire format can affect survey responses. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section, pp. 1046–1051. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Templer, K. J., & Lange, S. R. (2008). Internet testing: Equivalence between proctored lab and unproctored field conditions. Computer in Human Behavior, 24, 1216–1228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkaktesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wästlund, E., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2008). The effect of page layout on mental workload: A dual task experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1229–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeglovits, E., & Schwarzer, S. (2016). Presentation Matters: How mode effects in item non-response depend on the presentation of response options. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(2), 191–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar