A key issue that has emerged is the security of Internet testing (Tippins et al., 2006). This can be readily understood in the context of statistics such as those offered by the background checking company Automatic Data Processing Inc. (2008), which reports that 45% of U.S. job applicants falsify work histories. To that can be added popular books such as Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner, 2005), which asks the question in the second chapter: What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? The reader finds the answer is cheating. So, in an era of rapid change, new technologies, uncertainty, and concerns about trust, one can understand that the security of Internet testing is a legitimate concern. But, as Tippins (2008) stated at a recent Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology symposium on online testing, ‘‘The Internet testing train has left the station!’’ This reinforces the message that one of the key challenges to our science and practice is how we can effectively and practically defend the security and fairness of Internet testing. I will offer a few thoughts based on my work with colleagues on developing Internet testing solutions for clients in Asia, North America, and Europe (including the UK), experience gained from over 1.6 million ability tests delivered online in 19 languages over the past 7 years (Burke, 2008).
[1]
Fritz Drasgow,et al.
UNPROCTORED INTERNET TESTING IN EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS
,
2006
.
[2]
Ned Snell,et al.
Automatic Data Processing Inc.
,
1993,
Corporate Philanthropy Report.
[3]
R. Petty,et al.
Using Partially Structured Attitude Measures to Enhance the Attitude-Behavior Relationship
,
2004,
Personality & social psychology bulletin.
[4]
William von Hippel,et al.
Individual Differences in Motivated Social Cognition: The Case of Self-Serving Information Processing
,
2005,
Personality & social psychology bulletin.
[5]
Gregory J. Cizek,et al.
Cheating on Tests : How To Do It, Detect It, and Prevent It
,
1999
.