On Test and Computer Anxiety: Test Performance under Cat and Sat Conditions

Abstract

This article examines the differences between computer adaptive (CAT) and self-adapted testing (SAT) along with possible differences in feedback conditions and gender. Areas of comparison include measurement precision/efficiency and student test characteristics. Participants included 623 undergraduates from a large Midwestern university who took math placement tests in a 4 (condition) × 2 (feedback) × 2 (gender) design. The four conditions included: a) CAT; b) SAT—Global; c) SAT—Individual; and d) SAT—Placebo groups. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to analyze the data. The perceived control hypothesis was used as a framework to explain the differences between CAT and SAT. Results indicated that measurement efficiency is differentially affected by the type of test condition with the SAT—Global condition performing worse than the others. Moreover, there were significant gender effects with regard to ability, test length, and test anxiety. There was no relative advantage for the inclusion of item feedback. Implications for computerized adaptive testing and areas of future research are discussed.