Computer vs. Paper Tasks
Ergonomics Vol. 51, No. 9, September 2008, 1352–1375
Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent?
Jan M. Noyesa* and Kate J. Garlandb a University of Bristol, Department of Experimental Psychology, 12A Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK; bUniversity of Leicester, School of Psychology, Henry Wellcome Building, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 9HN, UK
Downloaded By: [University of California Davis] At: 01:30 13 October 2009
In 1992, Dillon published his critical review of the empirical literature on reading from paper vs. screen. However, the debate concerning the equivalence of computer- and paper-based tasks continues, especially with the growing interest in online assessment. The current paper reviews the literature over the last 15 years and contrasts the results of these more recent studies with Dillon’s findings. It is concluded that total equivalence is not possible to achieve, although developments in computer technology, more sophisticated comparative measures and more positive user attitudes have resulted in a continuing move towards achieving this goal. Many paper-based tasks used for assessment or evaluation have been transferred directly onto computers with little regard for any implications. This paper considers equivalence issues between the media by reviewing performance measures. While equivalence seems impossible, the importance of any differences appears specific to the task and required outcomes. Keywords: computer vs. paper; NASA-TLX workload measure; online assessment; performance indices
1. Introduction The use of computer in comparison to paper continues to attract research interest. This is not necessarily in terms of which medium will dominate, although there are still publications on the ‘myth of the paperless office’ (see Sellen and Harper 2002), but rather on the extent of their equivalence. Testing, for example, is central to the disciplines of Applied Psychology and Education and, in situations requiring assessment,
Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent?
Jan M. Noyesa* and Kate J. Garlandb a University of Bristol, Department of Experimental Psychology, 12A Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK; bUniversity of Leicester, School of Psychology, Henry Wellcome Building, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 9HN, UK
Downloaded By: [University of California Davis] At: 01:30 13 October 2009
In 1992, Dillon published his critical review of the empirical literature on reading from paper vs. screen. However, the debate concerning the equivalence of computer- and paper-based tasks continues, especially with the growing interest in online assessment. The current paper reviews the literature over the last 15 years and contrasts the results of these more recent studies with Dillon’s findings. It is concluded that total equivalence is not possible to achieve, although developments in computer technology, more sophisticated comparative measures and more positive user attitudes have resulted in a continuing move towards achieving this goal. Many paper-based tasks used for assessment or evaluation have been transferred directly onto computers with little regard for any implications. This paper considers equivalence issues between the media by reviewing performance measures. While equivalence seems impossible, the importance of any differences appears specific to the task and required outcomes. Keywords: computer vs. paper; NASA-TLX workload measure; online assessment; performance indices
1. Introduction The use of computer in comparison to paper continues to attract research interest. This is not necessarily in terms of which medium will dominate, although there are still publications on the ‘myth of the paperless office’ (see Sellen and Harper 2002), but rather on the extent of their equivalence. Testing, for example, is central to the disciplines of Applied Psychology and Education and, in situations requiring assessment,
References: 1373 Hansen, W.J., Doring, R., and Whitlock, L.R., 1978 1375 Steer, R.A., et al., 1994