Comparing Paper and Tablet Modalities of Math Assessment for Multiplication and Addition

REFERENCES

• Backes, B., Cowan, J. (2018). Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of online testing on measured student achievement. [CALDER Working Paper No. 190]. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20190.pdf?platform=hootsuite
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E., Braswell, J., Oranje, A., Sandene, B., Kaplan, B., & Yan, F. (2008). Does it matter if I take my mathematics test on a computer? A second empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(9). https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1639
   Google Scholar
• Burns, M. K., Taylor, C. N., Warmbold‐Brann, K. L., Preast, J. L., Hosp, J. L., & Ford, J. W. (2017). Empirical synthesis of the effect of standard error of measurement on decisions made within brief experimental analyses of reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 54(6), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camara, W. J. (2003, February 28). College persistence, graduation, and remediation. College Entrance Examination Board. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562644
   Google Scholar
• Codding, R. S., Collier-Meek, M., Jimerson, S., Klingbeil, D. A., Mayer, M. J., & Miller, F. (2020). School Psychology reflections on COVID-19, antiracism, and gender and racial disparities in publishing. School Psychology, 35(4), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotten, S. R., Hale, T. M., Moroney, M. H., O’Neal, L., & Borch, C. (2011). Using affordable technology to decrease digital inequality: results from Birmingham’s one laptop per child XO laptop project. Information, Communication, and Society, 14(4), 424–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.559266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duhon, G. J., House, S. H., & Stinnett, T. A. (2012). Evaluating the generalization of math fact fluency gains across paper and computer performance modalities. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer, R. L., McGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., Benson, N. F., Smith-Kellen, S., Lockwood, A. B., Powell, S., Pynn, C., & Stinnett, T. A. (2020). Conducting psychoeducational assessments during the COVID-19 crisis: The danger of good intentions. Contemporary School Psychology, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00293-x.
   Google Scholar
• Fastbridge. (n.d.) CBM Math. https://www.fastbridge.org/product-math/cbmmath/
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, B., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foy, P. (2018). The TIMSS 2019 item equivalence study: Examining mode effects for computer‑based assessment and implications for measuring trends. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0064-z
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, J. L., & Fienup, D. M. (2018). A preliminary analysis of mastery criterion level: Effects on response maintenance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0201-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goo, M., Watt, S., Park, Y., & Hosp, J. (2012). A guide to choosing web-based curriculum-based measurements for the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204500204
   Google Scholar
• Hamhuis, E., Glas, C., & Meelissen, M. (2020). Tablet assessment in primary education: Are there performance differences between TIMSS’ paper‐and‐pencil test and tablet test among Dutch grade‐four students? British Journal of Educational Technology, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12914
   Google Scholar
• Hassler Hallstedt, M., & Ghaderi, A. (2018). Tablets instead of paper-based tests for young children? Comparability between paper and tablet versions of the mathematical Heidelberger Rechen Test 1-4. Educational Assessment, 23(3), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1488587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensley, K., Rankin, A., & Hosp, J. (2017). Comparing student performance on paper- and computer-based math curriculum-based measures. Assistive Technology, 29(3), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1212129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herold, B. (2020). The scramble to move America’s schools online. Education Week, 39(28), 14–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., Allen, N., Kaplan, B., & Yan, F. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test on computer? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(2). https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1641
   Google Scholar
• Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM. Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kingston, N. M. (2008). Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for K–12 populations: A synthesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802558326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koon, S. D., & Davis, M. (2019, July 31). Math Course Sequences in Grades 6-11 and Math Achievement in Mississippi. REL 2019-007. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED597299
   Google Scholar
• Krach, S. K., McCreery, M. P., Dennis, L., Guerard, J., & Harris, E. L. (2020). Independent evaluation of Q‐Interactive: A ­paper equivalency comparison using the PPVT‐4 with preschoolers. Psychology in the Schools, 57(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case design technical documentation. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/229
   Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld, M., & Tarasawa, B. (2020). The COVID-19 slide: What summer learning loss can tell us about the potential impact of school closures on student academic achievement. Northwest Evaluation Association.
   Google Scholar
• math-aids. (n.d.) Addition worksheets. https://www.math-aids.com/Addition/
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, L. A. (2020). School-year closures now affect 50 million students. Education Week. https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2020/05/50_million_students_out_for_academic_year.html
   Google Scholar
• Monem, R., Bennett, K. D., & Barbetta, P. M. (2018). The effects of low-tech and high-tech active student responding strategies during history instruction for students with SLD. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16(1), 87–106.
   Google Scholar
• Mulet, J., van de Leemput, C., & Amadieu, F. (2019). A critical literature review of perceptions of tablets for learning in primary and secondary schools. Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 631–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09478-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). Common Core StateStandards for Mathematics. Author.
   Google Scholar
• Northwest Evaluation Association. (2011). Technical manual for Measures of AcademicProgress (MAP) and Measures of Academic Progress for Primary Grades (MPG). Author.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. J. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson. ( n.d.) aimsweb PLUS. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/professional-assessments/digital-solutions/aimsweb/about.html
   Google Scholar
• Pearson. ( n.d.). Q-interactive. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/professional-assessments/digital-solutions/q-interactive/about.html
   Google Scholar
• Petersen-Brown, S., Henze, E. E. C., Klingbeil, D. A., Reynolds, J. L., Weber, R. C., & Codding, R. S. (2019). The use of touch devices for enhancing academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 56(7), 1187–1206. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quizlet. (2020). Math flashcards, diagrams, and study guides. https://quizlet.com/topic/math
   Google Scholar
• Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, E. S., & Gebhardt, S. N. (2012). Comparing computer-adaptive and curriculum-based measurement methods of assessment. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundeen, T. H., & Sundeen, D. M. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools: Access and acquisition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(2), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200203
   Google Scholar
• Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tingir, S., Cavlazoglu, B., Caliskan, O., Koklu, O., & Intepe-Tingir, S. (2017). Effects of mobile devices on K–12 students’ achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics, 2019. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education learning powered by technology. U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4-5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vannest, K. J., Parker, R. I., Gonen, O., & Adiguzel, T, based calculators for SCR analysis. (Version 2.0) [Web-based application (2016). Single case research: Web]. Texas A&M University.
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, S. C. (2011). Digital divide: Navigating the digital edge. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1162/IJLM_A_00072
   Google Scholar
• What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). Standards Handbook (Version 4.1). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf
   Google Scholar