Effect of Test-Taking Venue and Response Format on Political Knowledge Tests

REFERENCES

• Abbott, L., Siskovic, T. O., Nogues, V., & Williams, J. G. (2000). Student assessment in multimedia instruction: Considerations for the instructional designer. Retrieved from http://editlib.org
   Google Scholar
• Bates, S. C., & Cox, J. M. (2008). The impact of computer versus paper-pencil survey, and individual versus group administration, on self-reports of sensitive behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 903–916. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belli, R. F., Traugott, M. T., Young, M., & Gonagle, K. A. (1999). Reducing vote overreporting in surveys: Social desirability, memory failure, and source monitoring. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 90–108. Retrieved from http://to.jstor.org/stable/2991270
   Google Scholar
• Booth-Kewley, S., & Larson, G. E., & Miyoshi, D. K. (2007). Social desirability effects on computerized and paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 463–477. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27, 281–291. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 112, 155–159.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Education and Psychological Measurement, 6, 675–694. Retrieved from http://epm.sagepub.com/content/6/4/475.full.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. J. (2006). Citizenship norms and political participation in America: The good news is … the bad news is wrong. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Retrieved from http://www8.georgetown.edu/centers/cdacs/cid/DaltonOccasionalPaper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1179–1206. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc papers/24
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 615–639. Retrieved from http://jafxzjo.m-public.com/DownloadPublication/235_comparing-data.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dwight, S. A., & Feigelson, M. E. (2000). A quantitative review of the effect of computerized testing on the measurement of social desirability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 340–360. doi:10.1177/00131640021970583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feigelson, M. E., & Dwight, S. A. (2000). Can asking questions by computer improve the candidness of responding? A meta-analytic perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52, 248–255. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.52.4.248
   Google Scholar
• Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper- and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11, 322–333. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook. A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 37–67. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janda, K., Berry, J., & Goldman, J. (1999). The challenge of democracy: American Government in global politics. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Lajunen, T., & Summala, T.O. (2003). Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects of impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6, 97–107. doi:10.1016/S1369-8478(03)00008-1
   Google Scholar
• Lalwani, A. K., Shrum, L. J., & Chiu, C. (2009). Motivated response styles: The role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self consciousness in socially desirable responding. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 96, 870–882. doi:10.1037/a0014622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lautenschlager, G. J., & Flaherty, V. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310–314. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449–458. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondak, J. J. (2001). Developing valid political knowledge scales. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 224–238. Retrieved from http://to.jstor.org/stable/2669369
   Google Scholar
• Moon, T.O. (1998). Impression management in computer-based interviews: The effects of input modality, output modality, and distance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 610–622. Retrieved from http://to.jstor.org/stable/2749679
   Google Scholar
• Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie, N., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parks, K. A., Pardi, A. M., & Bradizza, C. M. (2006). Collecting data on alcohol use and alcohol-related victimization. A comparison of telephone and web-based survey methods. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 67, 318–323. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4208d4a5-b55f-4236-8cad-5600b8e89ead%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=24
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Social desirable responding: The evolution of the construct. In I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley ( Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement ( pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Nadine, B. M., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 890–904. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.890
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richman, L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). Meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754–775. Retrieved from http://weisband.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/weisband.faculty.arizona.edu/files/apl84 5754.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2). Retrieved from http://to.westga.edu/˜distance/ojdla/summer72/rowe72.html
   Google Scholar
• Schachter, D. L. (2002). The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249–271. doi:10.1177/1525822X08317085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stimson, J. A. (2004). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–883. Retrieved from http://to.learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/a/a8/Tourangeau_SensitiveQuestio ns.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Trenholm, S. (2007). A review of cheating in fully asynchronous online courses: A math- or fact-based course perspective. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35, 281–300. doi: 10.2190/Y78L-H21X-241N-7Q02
   Google Scholar
• Webster, J., & Compeau, D. (1996). Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil administration of questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 567–576. doi:10.3758/BF03200544
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D. L., Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (1998). A comparison of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires in a survey on smoking, alcohol, and drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 331–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar