What is it about?
in psychological and occupational assessment. It examines how advances in computer technology have transformed traditional paper-and-pencil tests, covering key applications such as personnel selection, ability testing, adaptive testing, and assessment efficiency. The review synthesizes research on the advantages, limitations, equivalence, reliability, validity, acceptability, and ethical issues of CBT. It also discusses innovations enabled by computers—such as adaptive testing, dynamic item presentation, immediate feedback, and improved data handling—and evaluates whether computerized tests produce results comparable to conventional formats.
Featured Image
Photo by Christin Hume on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Foundational reference: One of the early integrative reviews mapping the transition from paper-based to computerized assessment. Methodological relevance: Clarifies when CBT is equivalent to traditional testing and when differences matter. Practical impact: Informs best practices in personnel selection, educational testing, and applied psychology. Forward-looking: Anticipates later developments such as adaptive testing and digital assessment ecosystems that are now standard.
Perspectives
When this review was written, computer-based testing was still viewed with caution by many practitioners. Our goal was not to advocate uncritical adoption, but to provide a balanced, evidence-based evaluation of what CBT could—and could not—offer assessment practice. Looking back, many of the issues discussed here, such as equivalence, fairness, and ethical use of technology, remain central today. This work reflects my long-standing interest in ensuring that technological advances enhance, rather than undermine, the scientific and ethical foundations of psychological assessment.
Prof. Othman H Alkhadher
Kuwait University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Computer-based testing: A review of recent developments in research and practice, European Work and Organizational Psychologist, April 1994, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/13594329408410482.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
