View in EDS

Assessing Graph Comprehension on Paper and Computer with MBA Students: A Crossover Experimental Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Assessing Graph Comprehension on Paper and Computer with MBA Students: A Crossover Experimental Study
Language: English
Authors: Boote, Stacy K., Boote, David N., Williamson, Steven
Source: Cogent Education. 2021 8(1).
Availability: Cogent OA. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Graduate Students, Masters Programs, Business Administration Education, Graphs, Computer Assisted Testing, Comprehension, Gender Differences, Test Format, Test Items, College Entrance Examinations, Business Schools, Graduate Study
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Graduate Management Admission Test
DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2021.1960247
ISSN: 2331-186X
Abstract: Several decades of research suggesting differences in test performance across paper-based and computer-based assessments have been largely ameliorated through attention to test presentation equivalence, though no studies to date have focused on graph comprehension items. Test items requiring graph comprehension are increasingly common but may be especially prone to format effects. A crossover experimental design was used to compare paper-based (PBT) with computer-based test (CBT) formats in a sample of 28 MBA students answering 6 items requiring comprehension of Venn diagrams, scatterplots, and divided bar charts. Data analysis using a 2x2x2x2 ANOVA revealed that participants' better performance on CBT, [eta]2 = 0.07, was not statistically significant, p = 0.23. While DIF analysis suggested no difference by gender in total score or individual items, interaction analysis between gender and format showed the overall format effect was due mainly to males performing better on CBT, p = 0.02, d = 0.91. Females performed about the same in both formats. For scatterplot questions, participants also performed better on CBT, p < 0.005, [phi] = 0.41. Finally, participants were more likely to answer an easier question requiring attention to fewer graph components correctly after answering a more challenging question that required attention to all graph components, p = 0.02, [phi] = 0.5. Interaction analysis also revealed a large carryover effect from the research design ([eta]2 = 0.48, p = 0.000), which we interpreted as a learning effect.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1333783
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1333783
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Assessing Graph Comprehension on Paper and Computer with MBA Students: A Crossover Experimental Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Boote%2C+Stacy+K%2E%22&quot;&gt;Boote, Stacy K.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Boote%2C+David+N%2E%22&quot;&gt;Boote, David N.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Williamson%2C+Steven%22&quot;&gt;Williamson, Steven&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Cogent+Education%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Cogent Education&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. 2021 8(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Cogent OA. Available from: Taylor &amp; Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Higher+Education%22&quot;&gt;Higher Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Postsecondary+Education%22&quot;&gt;Postsecondary Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Graduate+Students%22&quot;&gt;Graduate Students&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Masters+Programs%22&quot;&gt;Masters Programs&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Business+Administration+Education%22&quot;&gt;Business Administration Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Graphs%22&quot;&gt;Graphs&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Computer+Assisted+Testing%22&quot;&gt;Computer Assisted Testing&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Comprehension%22&quot;&gt;Comprehension&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Gender+Differences%22&quot;&gt;Gender Differences&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Test+Format%22&quot;&gt;Test Format&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Test+Items%22&quot;&gt;Test Items&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22College+Entrance+Examinations%22&quot;&gt;College Entrance Examinations&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Business+Schools%22&quot;&gt;Business Schools&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Graduate+Study%22&quot;&gt;Graduate Study&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SU&quot; term=&quot;%22Graduate+Management+Admission+Test%22&quot;&gt;Graduate Management Admission Test&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/2331186X.2021.1960247
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2331-186X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Several decades of research suggesting differences in test performance across paper-based and computer-based assessments have been largely ameliorated through attention to test presentation equivalence, though no studies to date have focused on graph comprehension items. Test items requiring graph comprehension are increasingly common but may be especially prone to format effects. A crossover experimental design was used to compare paper-based (PBT) with computer-based test (CBT) formats in a sample of 28 MBA students answering 6 items requiring comprehension of Venn diagrams, scatterplots, and divided bar charts. Data analysis using a 2x2x2x2 ANOVA revealed that participants&#39; better performance on CBT, [eta]2 = 0.07, was not statistically significant, p = 0.23. While DIF analysis suggested no difference by gender in total score or individual items, interaction analysis between gender and format showed the overall format effect was due mainly to males performing better on CBT, p = 0.02, d = 0.91. Females performed about the same in both formats. For scatterplot questions, participants also performed better on CBT, p &lt; 0.005, [phi] = 0.41. Finally, participants were more likely to answer an easier question requiring attention to fewer graph components correctly after answering a more challenging question that required attention to all graph components, p = 0.02, [phi] = 0.5. Interaction analysis also revealed a large carryover effect from the research design ([eta]2 = 0.48, p = 0.000), which we interpreted as a learning effect.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1333783
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1333783
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/2331186X.2021.1960247
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Masters Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business Administration Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graphs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Assisted Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Format
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Items
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Entrance Examinations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Management Admission Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Assessing Graph Comprehension on Paper and Computer with MBA Students: A Crossover Experimental Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Boote, Stacy K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Boote, David N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Williamson, Steven
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2331-186X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 8
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Cogent Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1