ІНФОРМАЦІЙНО-КОМУНІКАЦІЙНІ ТЕХНОЛОГІЇ В ПСИХОДІАГНОСТИЧНІЙ РОБОТІ: ВИКЛИКИ ТА МОЖЛИВОСТІ ВИКОРИСТАННЯ

Альона Василівна Малиношевська; Марина Юріївна Мельник

doi:10.33407/itlt.v94i2.5130

Vol. 94 No. 2 (2023), ICT to support psychological and educational research

Vol. 94 No. 2 (2023)

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN PSYCHODIAGNOSTICS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF USING

ICT to support psychological and educational research

Published 2023-04-30

Alona V. Malynoshevska⁺⁻
Maryna Yu. Melnyk⁺⁻

Alona V. Malynoshevska

Institute of Gifted Child of the NAES of Ukraine

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0472-1940

Maryna Yu. Melnyk

Institute of Gifted Child of the NAES of Ukraine

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6581-5129

PDF (Ukrainian)

Keywords

psychodiagnostics
information and communication technologies
Internet diagnostics

How to Cite

[1]

A. V. Malynoshevska and M. Y. Melnyk, “INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN PSYCHODIAGNOSTICS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF USING”, ITLT, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 164–177, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.33407/itlt.v94i2.5130.

Abstract

Conditions and current trends in the development of psychodiagnostic work, as well as challenges and opportunities for the use of information and communication technologies are considered.

It is noted that psychological diagnostics now is not only aimed at determining the presence or study of the severity of the psychological construct by recording the reactions of the subject to a set of standardized elements, but also contains a number of other procedures that analyze behavioral data collected through ICT and can be used to assess individual differences or predictions of future behavior.

Methods of computer psychodiagnostics (conversion of paper-pencil tests into electronic format; computer adaptive testing) are highlighted. Examples of the use of computer psychological diagnostics and Internet diagnostics (Web diagnostics) in psychological and pedagogical science and practice are presented. Differences between different forms of administration of the psychodiagnostic process (Internet diagnostics and traditional questionnaires (paper - pencil)) are described. The advantages and disadvantages of Internet testing in comparison with classical psychological diagnostics are highlighted. It is noted that the shortcomings and caveats that characterize traditional psychodiagnostic research are also true for electronic. However, the use of conventional security measures makes Web research as secure as traditional, giving users much more opportunities. Emphasis on ethical and psychometric risks of using Internet diagnostics is placed (problems in establishing "professional" relationships; lack of clear ways to form and interpret diagnostic results; use of methods, diagnostic results by unqualified persons; possibility of using diagnostic methods developed in violation of scientific procedures; full or partial lack of information on methodologies, limited ability to take into account contextual information, the use of outdated standards, limited ability to feedback, difficulties in ensuring the confidentiality of test results). The requirements for the use of information and communication technologies in psychodiagnostic work are generalized.

PDF (Ukrainian)

References

В. Биков, О. Спірін, та О. Пінчук, “Сучасні завдання цифрової трансформації освіти”, Вісник Кафедри ЮНЕСКО “Неперервна професійна освіта ХХІ століття”, N 1 (1), с. 27-36, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.35387/ucj.1(1).2020.27-36.

V. Kremen, V. Lugovyi, І. Reheilo, N. Bazeliuk, and О. Bazeliuk, “Openness, digitalization and evaluation in research: general and special issues for social studies and humanities”, Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 80(6), p. 243–266, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v80i6.4155.

American Psychological Association. (2006). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: APA. [Елетронний ресурс]. Доступно: https://www.academia.edu/40596461/American_Psychological_Association_APA_Dictionary.

D. Iliescu, and S. Greiff, “The Impact of Technology on Psychological Testing in Practice and Policy”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol. 35, issue 2, pp. 151-155, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000532.

N. B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, and C Lampe, “Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices”, New Media & Society, 13(6), pp. 873–892, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389.

A. B. Cooper, A. B. Blake, R. E. Pauletti, P. J. Cooper, R. A. Sherman, and D. I. Lee, “Personality Assessment Through the Situational and Behavioral Features of Instagram Photos”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol. 36, issue 6. pp. 959-972, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000596.

G. Ammannato, and F. Chiesi, “Playing With Networks. Using Video Games as a Psychological Assessment Tool”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol. 36, issue 6, pp. 973-980, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000608.

M-hW. Flahive, Y-C. Chuang, and C-M. Li, “The Multimedia Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale 2: Its Psychometric Properties, Equivalence with the Paper-and-Pencil Version, and Respondent Preferences”, PLoS ONE, 10(8), 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135386.

J. Dörendahl, and S. Greiff, “Are the Machines Taking Over? Benefits and Challenges of Using Algorithms in (Short) Scale Construction”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36, pp. 217-219, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000597.

П. Клайн, Справочное руководство по констуированию тестов, Киев, 1994.

A. P. Byers, “Psychological evaluation by means of an online computer”, Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 13, рр. 585-587, 1981.

P. Aşkar, A. Altun, B. Cangöz, V. Çevik, G. Kaya and H. Türksoy, “A Comparison of Paper-and-Pencil and Computerized Forms of Line Orientation and Enhanced Cued Recall Tests”, Psychological Reports, 110(2), 383–396, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/:10.2466/03.22.pr0.110.2.383-396.

F. Pouwer, F. J. Snoek, H. M. van der Ploeg , R. J. Heine, and A. N. Brand, “A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ)” Quality of Life Research, 7(1), рр. 33–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008832821181.

W. S. Aquilino, D. L. Wright, and A. J. Supple. “Response Effects Due to Bystander Presence in CASI and Paper-and-Pencil Surveys of Drug Use and Alcohol Use”, Substance Use & Misuse, 35(6-8), рр. 845–867, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080009148424.

D. Baier, “Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil self-report delinquency surveys: Results of an experimental study”, European Journal of Criminology, 15 (4), рр. 385-402, 2018.

L. J. Buxbaum, A. M. Dawson, and D. Linsley, “Reliability and validity of the Virtual Reality Lateralized Attention Test in assessing hemispatial neglect in right-hemisphere stroke”, Neuropsychology, 26(4), рр. 430–441, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028674.

A. Barak, and N. English, “Prospects and Limitations of Psychological Testing on the Internet”, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19(2-3), рр. 65–89, 2002. doi:https://doi.org/:10.1300/j017v19n02_06.

T. Buchanan, “Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous?”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(2), рр. 148–154, 2002. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.2.148.

M. M. Maheu, and B. L. Gordon, “Counseling and therapy on the Internet”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 484–489, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.31.5.484.

M. Martinez-Gomez, J. A. Marin-Garcia, and M. G. O'Meara, “Testing invariance between web and paper students satisfaction surveys: A case study”, Intangible Capital, 13(5), 879, 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1049.

A. de Beuckelaer, and F. Lievens, “Measurement equivalence of paper‐and‐pencil and Internet organisational surveys: A large scale examination in 16 countries”, Applied Psychology, 58(2), рр. 336-361, 2009. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00350.x.

J. E. Williams, and D. M. McCord, “Equivalence of standard and computerized versions of the Raven Progressive Matrices Test”. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), рр. 791–800, 2006. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.005.

B. Terluin, P. M. Brouwers, М. A. G. Marchand, and H. C. W. de Vet, “Assessing the equivalence of Web-based and paper-and-pencil questionnaires using differential item and test functioning (DIF and DTF) analysis: a case of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ)”, Quality of Life Research, 2018. doi:https://doi.org/:10.1007/s11136-018-1816-5.

S. Hays, and R. S. McCallum, “A comparison of the pencil-and-paper and computer-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent”, Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), рр. 605–613, 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20106.

T. Joubert, and H. J. Kriek, “Psychometric comparison of paper and-pencil and online personality assessments in a selection setting”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v35i1.727.

S. D. Maksymenko, & O. M. Kokun, “Principles of website design for professional psychological diagnosis in different specialties”, Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 73(5), p. 284–292, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v73i5.2963

M. A. Vallejo, G. Mañanes, M. A. I. Comeche, and M. I. Díaz “Comparison between administration via Internet and paper-and-pencil aministration of to cinical istruments: SCL-90-R and GHQ-28”, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2008, vol. 39 (3), p. 201–208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2007.04.001.

B. D. Buchan, D. L. DeAngelis, and E. M. Levinson, “A comparison of the web-based and paper-and-pencil versions of the career key interest inventory with a sample of university women”, Journal of Employment Counseling, 42(1), 39–46, 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2005.tb00897.x.

L. Smolinsky, D. M. Brian, G. Olafsson, and Y. Ma, “A Computer-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Tests: A Study in Calculus for STEM Majors”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120930235.

P. Carlbring, and et al. “Internet vs. paper and pencil administration of questionnaires commonly used in panic/agoraphobia research”, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, рр. 1421-1434, 2007 doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2005.05.002.

S. N. Feldstein, F. R. Keller, R. E. Portman, R. L. Durham, K. J. Klebe, and P. D. Hasker, “A comparison of computerized and standard versions of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test”, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 303-313, 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.13.3.303.1744.

T. Buchanan, J. A. Johnson, and L. R. Goldberg, “Implementing a Five-Factor Personality Inventory for Use on the Internet”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 115–127,2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.115.

P. Kveton, M. Jelı´nek, D. Voboril, and H. Klimusova “Computer-based tests: the impact of test design and problem of equivalency”, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, рр. 32–51, 2007. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.034.

V. Rimantas, R. Žukauskienė, and O. Malinauskienė, “Comparison of Internet-Based versus Paper-and-Pencil Administered Assessment of Positive Development Indicators in Adolescents' Sample”, Psychology, 45:7-21, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.15388/Psichol.2012.45.1.

M. Denscombe, “Web-Based Questionnaires and the Mode Effect. An Evaluation Based on Completion Rates and Data Contents of Near-Identical Questionnaires Delivered in Different Modes”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 24(2), pp. 246-254, 2006. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305284522.

S. Thompson, E. Ennis, T. Coffin, and S. Farman, “Design and evaluation of a computerized version of the Benton Visual Retention Test”, Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2383-2393, 2007. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.014.

B J. N. Butcher, J. N. Perry, and M. M. Atlis, “Validity and utility of computer based test interpretation”, Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.006.

T. Buchanan “Internet-based questionnaire assessment: appropriate use in clinical contexts”, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy; 32:100-9, 2003. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070310000957.

Українське лонгітюдне дослідження: методичні рекомендації з використання психодіагностичних інструментів другої хвилі дослідження / [Максименко С. Д., Кокун О. М., Панок В. Г. та ін.], Київ - Харків: Ін-т психології імені Г. С. Костюка НАПН України, 72 с., 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.32631/uls2021.

D. Dillman, J. Smyth, and L. Christian, Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, New York: Wiley, 2009.

U. D. Reips, “The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages and solutions”. In M. H. Birnbaum (Eds.), Psychological Experiments on the Internet, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 89-117, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012099980-4/50005-8.

J. A. Naglieri, et al., “Psychological Testing on the Internet: New Problems, Old Issues”, American Psychologist, 59(3), рр. 150–162, 2004. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.59.3.150.

J. Fang, C. Wen, and R. Pavur, “Participation willingness in web surveys: Exploring effect of sponsoring corporation’s and survey provider’s reputation”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(4), рр. 195-199, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0411.

M. Schonlau, R. D. Fricker, and M. N. Elliott, Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2002.

G. W. Yun and C. W. Trumbo, “Comparative Response to a Survey Executed by Post, e-mail, & Web Form”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1), 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x.

D. A. Dillman, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd Eds.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.

Z. Simsek, and J. F. Veigha, “A primer on internet organizational surveys”, Organizational Research Methods, 4, 218-235, 2001. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143003.

Wu. Youyou, M. Kosinski, and D. Stillwell, “Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(4), рр. 1036–1040, 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418680112.

M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, and T. Graepel, “Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), рр. 5802–5805, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218772110.

Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky, “Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems”. Computer 42(8), 30–37, 2009. [Елетронний ресурс]. Доступно: https://www.inf.unibz.it/~ricci/ISR/papers/ieeecomputer.pdf.

Y. Chen, D. Pavlov, and J. F. Canny, “Large-scale behavioral targeting”, in International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp 209–218, 2009. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1557019.1557048

S. C. Matz, R. E. Appel, and M. Kosinski, “Privacy in the age of psychological targeting”, Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 116–121. 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.010.

American Psychological Association, Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017). [Елетронний ресурс]. Доступно: www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.

REFERENCES (TRANSLATED AND TRANSLITERATED)

REFERENCES (TRANSLATED AND TRANSLITERATED)

V. Bykov, О. Spirin, and О. Pinchuk, “Modern tasks of digital transformation of education”, Bulletin of the UNESCO Chair “Continuing professional education of the XXI century”, N 1 (1), pp. 27-36, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.35387/ucj.1(1).2020.27-36. (in Ukrainian).

V. Kremen, V. Lugovyi, І. Reheilo, N. Bazeliuk, and О. Bazeliuk, “Openness, digitalization and evaluation in research: general and special issues for social studies and humanities”, Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 80(6), p. 243–266, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v80i6.4155. (in English).

American Psychological Association. (2006). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: APA. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/40596461/American_Psychological_Association_APA_Dictionary. (in English).

D. Iliescu, and S. Greiff, “The Impact of Technology on Psychological Testing in Practice and Policy”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol. 35, issue 2, pp. 151-155, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000532. (in English).

N. B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, and C Lampe, “Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices”, New Media & Society, 13(6), pp. 873–892, 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389. (in English).

A. B. Cooper, A. B. Blake, R. E. Pauletti, P. J. Cooper, R. A. Sherman, and D. I. Lee, “Personality Assessment Through the Situational and Behavioral Features of Instagram Photos”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol. 36, issue 6. pp. 959-972, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000596. (in English).

G. Ammannato, and F. Chiesi, “Playing with Networks. Using Video Games as a Psychological Assessment Tool”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol. 36, issue 6, pp. 973-980, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000608. (in English).

M-hW. Flahive, Y-C. Chuang, and C-M. Li, “The Multimedia Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale 2: Its Psychometric Properties, Equivalence with the Paper-and-Pencil Version, and Respondent Preferences”, PLoS ONE, 10(8), 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135386. (in English).

J. Dörendahl, and S. Greiff, “Are the Machines Taking Over? Benefits and Challenges of Using Algorithms in (Short) Scale Construction”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36, pp. 217-219, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000597. (in English).

P. Klain, Reference guide for designing tests, Kyiv, 1994. (in Russian).

A. P. Byers, “Psychological evaluation by means of an online computer”, Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 13, рр. 585-587, 1981. (in English).

P. Aşkar, A. Altun, B. Cangöz, V. Çevik, G. Kaya and H. Türksoy, “A Comparison of Paper-and-Pencil and Computerized Forms of Line Orientation and Enhanced Cued Recall Tests”, Psychological Reports, 110(2), 383–396, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/:10.2466/03.22.pr0.110.2.383-396. (in English).

F. Pouwer, F. J. Snoek, H. M. van der Ploeg , R. J. Heine, and A. N. Brand, “A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ)” Quality of Life Research, 7(1), рр. 33–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008832821181. (in English).

W. S. Aquilino, D. L. Wright, and A. J. Supple. “Response Effects Due to Bystander Presence in CASI and Paper-and-Pencil Surveys of Drug Use and Alcohol Use”, Substance Use & Misuse, 35(6-8), рр. 845–867, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080009148424. (in English).

D. Baier, “Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil self-report delinquency surveys: Results of an experimental study”, European Journal of Criminology, 15 (4), рр. 385-402, 2018. (in English).

L. J. Buxbaum, A. M. Dawson, and D. Linsley, “Reliability and validity of the Virtual Reality Lateralized Attention Test in assessing hemispatial neglect in right-hemisphere stroke”, Neuropsychology, 26(4), рр. 430–441, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028674. (in English).

A. Barak, and N. English, “Prospects and Limitations of Psychological Testing on the Internet”, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19(2-3), рр. 65–89, 2002. doi:https://doi.org/:10.1300/j017v19n02_06. (in English).

T. Buchanan, “Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous?”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(2), рр. 148–154, 2002. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.2.148. (in English).

M. M. Maheu, and B. L. Gordon, “Counseling and therapy on the Internet”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 484–489, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.31.5.484. (in English).

M. Martinez-Gomez, J. A. Marin-Garcia, and M. G. O'Meara, “Testing invariance between web and paper student’s satisfaction surveys: A case study”, Intangible Capital, 13(5), 879, 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1049. (in English).

A. de Beuckelaer, and F. Lievens, “Measurement equivalence of paper‐and‐pencil and Internet organizational surveys: A large scale examination in 16 countries”, Applied Psychology, 58(2), рр. 336-361, 2009. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00350.x. (in English).

J. E. Williams, and D. M. McCord, “Equivalence of standard and computerized versions of the Raven Progressive Matrices Test”. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), рр. 791–800, 2006. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.005. (in English).

B. Terluin, P. M. Brouwers, М. A. G. Marchand, and H. C. W. de Vet, “Assessing the equivalence of Web-based and paper-and-pencil questionnaires using differential item and test functioning (DIF and DTF) analysis: a case of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ)”, Quality of Life Research, 2018. doi:https://doi.org/:10.1007/s11136-018-1816-5. (in English).

S. Hays, and R. S. McCallum, “A comparison of the pencil-and-paper and computer-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent”, Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), рр. 605–613, 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20106. (in English).

T. Joubert, and H. J. Kriek, “Psychometric comparison of paper and-pencil and online personality assessments in a selection setting”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v35i1.727. (in English).

S. D. Maksymenko, & O. M. Kokun, “Principles of website design for professional psychological diagnosis in different specialties”, Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 73(5), p. 284–292, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v73i5.2963. (in English).

M. A. Vallejo, G. Mañanes, M. A. I. Comeche, and M. I. Díaz “Comparison between administration via Internet and paper-and-pencil aministration of to cinical istruments: SCL-90-R and GHQ-28”, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2008, vol. 39 (3), p. 201–208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2007.04.001. (in English).

B. D. Buchan, D. L. DeAngelis, and E. M. Levinson, “A comparison of the web-based and paper-and-pencil versions of the career key interest inventory with a sample of university women”, Journal of Employment Counseling, 42(1), 39–46, 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2005.tb00897.x. (in English).

L. Smolinsky, D. M. Brian, G. Olafsson, and Y. Ma, “A Computer-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Tests: A Study in Calculus for STEM Majors”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120930235. (in English).

P. Carlbring, and et al. “Internet vs. paper and pencil administration of questionnaires commonly used in panic/agoraphobia research”, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, рр. 1421-1434, 2007. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2005.05.002. (in English).

S. N. Feldstein, F. R. Keller, R. E. Portman, R. L. Durham, K. J. Klebe, and P. D. Hasker, “A comparison of computerized and standard versions of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test”, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 303-313, 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.13.3.303.1744. (in English).

T. Buchanan, J. A. Johnson, and L. R. Goldberg, “Implementing a Five-Factor Personality Inventory for Use on the Internet”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 115–127,2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.115. (in English).

P. Kveton, M. Jelı´nek, D. Voboril, and H. Klimusova “Computer-based tests: the impact of test design and problem of equivalency”, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, рр. 32–51, 2007. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.034. (in English).

V. Rimantas, R. Žukauskienė, and O. Malinauskienė, “Comparison of Internet-Based versus Paper-and-Pencil Administered Assessment of Positive Development Indicators in Adolescents' Sample”, Psychology, 45:7-21, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.15388/Psichol.2012.45.1. (in English).

M. Denscombe, “Web-Based Questionnaires and the Mode Effect. An Evaluation Based on Completion Rates and Data Contents of Near-Identical Questionnaires Delivered in Different Modes”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 24(2), pp. 246-254, 2006. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305284522. (in English).

S. Thompson, E. Ennis, T. Coffin, and S. Farman, “Design and evaluation of a computerized version of the Benton Visual Retention Test”, Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2383-2393, 2007. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.014. (in English).

B J. N. Butcher, J. N. Perry, and M. M. Atlis, “Validity and utility of computer based test interpretation”, Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.006. (in English).

T. Buchanan “Internet-based questionnaire assessment: appropriate use in clinical contexts”, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy; 32:100-9, 2003. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070310000957. (in English).

Ukrainian Longitudinal Study (ULS) : methodological recommendations for the use of psychodiagnostic tools of the second wave of research [S. D. Maksymenko, O. M. Kokun, V. G. Panok, et al.], Kyiv - Kharkiv: H.S. Kostyuk Institute of Psychology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 72 p., 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.32631/uls2021. (in Ukrainian).

D. Dillman, J. Smyth, and L. Christian, Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, New York: Wiley, 2009. (in English).

U. D. Reips, “The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages and solutions”. In M. H. Birnbaum (Eds.), Psychological Experiments on the Internet, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 89-117, 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012099980-4/50005-8. (in English).

J. A. Naglieri, et al., “Psychological Testing on the Internet: New Problems, Old Issues”, American Psychologist, 59(3), рр. 150–162, 2004. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.59.3.150. (in English).

J. Fang, C. Wen, and R. Pavur, “Participation willingness in web surveys: Exploring effect of sponsoring corporation’s and survey provider’s reputation”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(4), рр. 195-199, 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0411. (in English).

M. Schonlau, R. D. Fricker, and M. N. Elliott, Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2002. (in English).

G. W. Yun and C. W. Trumbo, “Comparative Response to a Survey Executed by Post, e-mail, & Web Form”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1), 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x. (in English).

D. A. Dillman, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd Eds.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. (in English).

Z. Simsek, and J. F. Veigha, “A primer on internet organizational surveys”, Organizational Research Methods, 4, 218-235, 2001. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143003. (in English).

Wu. Youyou, M. Kosinski, and D. Stillwell, “Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(4), рр. 1036–1040, 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418680112. (in English).

M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, and T. Graepel, “Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), рр. 5802–5805, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218772110. (in English).

Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky, “Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems”. Computer 42(8), 30–37, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.inf.unibz.it/~ricci/ISR/papers/ieeecomputer.pdf. (in English).

Y. Chen, D. Pavlov, and J. F. Canny, “Large-scale behavioral targeting”, in International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 209–218, 2009. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1557019.1557048. (in English).

S. C. Matz, R. E. Appel, and M. Kosinski, “Privacy in the age of psychological targeting”, Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 116–121. 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.010. (in English).

American Psychological Association, Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017). [Online]. Available: www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. (in English).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.