Arthur, W., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2010). The magnitude and extent of cheating and response distortion effects on unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arthur, W., Jr., Doverspike, D., Munoz, G. J., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2014). The use of mobile devices in high-stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 113–123.Google Scholar

ATP Test Security Survey Report. (2012). Association of Test Publishers.Google Scholar

Beaty, J. C., Grauer, E., & Davis, J. (2006). Unproctored Internet testing: Important questions and empirical answers. In J. C. Beaty (Chair), Unproctored Internet testing: What do the data say? Practitioner forum conducted at the 21st annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar

Beaty, J. C., Dawson, C. R., Fallaw, S. S., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2009). Recovering the scientist-practitioner model: How IOs should respond to UIT. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 58–63.Google Scholar

Beaty, J. C., Nye, C., Borneman, M., Kantrowitz, T. M., Drasgow, F., & Grauer, E. (2011). Proctored versus unproctored Internet tests: Are unproctored tests as predictive of job performance? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brault, M. W. (2010). Americans With Disabilities: 2010. Current Population Reports, 70-117, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2008. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf.Google Scholar

Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Delgado, K., Kung, M. C., & O’Connell, M. S. (2009). Differences between proctored and unproctored groups on management potential measure. Paper presented at the 24th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar

Do, B., Shepherd, W. J., & Drasgow, F. (2005). Measurement equivalence across proctored versus unproctored testing with job incumbents. Paper presented at the 20th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Dolan, B. (2015). Pew: 64 Percent of US adults own a smartphone now. Retrieved from http://mobihealthnews.com/42077/pew-64-percent-of-us-adults-own-a-smartphone-now (accessed December 21, 2015).Google Scholar

Doverspike, D., Arthur, W. Jr., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2012). Mobile mania: Impact of device type on remotely delivered assessments. In J. C. Scott (Chair), Chasing the tortoise: Zeno’s paradox in technology-based assessment. Symposium presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Drasgow, F., Luecht, R. M., & Bennett, R. (2006). Technology and testing. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 471–516). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar

Fallaw, S., & Kantrowitz, T.M. (2011). Global assessment trends report. Technical Report. Alpharetta, GA, SHL.Google Scholar

Fallaw, S., Kantrowitz, T. M., & Dawson, C. R. (2012). Global assessment trends report. Technical Report. Alpharetta, GA: SHL.Google Scholar

Fetzer, M. (2009, April). Validity and utility of computer adaptive testing in personnel selection. Symposium presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fetzer, M., & Grelle, D. (2010). PreVisor ConVerge: The best practice for unproctored/unsupervised Internet testing. White paper. Alpharetta, GA: SHL.Google Scholar

Fursman, P. M., & Tuzinski, K. A. (2015, April). Reactions to mobile testing from the perspective of job applicants. Paper presented at the 30th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Gartner (2015). Retrieved from www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3088221 (accessed December 20, 2015).Google Scholar

Golubovich, J., & Boyce, A. (2013). Hiring tests: Trends in mobile test usage. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: Where are we now? Symposium presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar

Guo, J., Tay, L. & Drasgow, F. (2009). Conspiracies and test compromise: An evaluation of the resistance of test systems to small-scale cheating. International Journal of Testing, 9, 283–309.Google Scholar

Grelle, D., Gutierrez, S. L., & Fetzer, M. S. (2010). Validity of CAT in personnel selection. Paper presented at the International Association of Computer Adaptive Testing (IACAT) Conference, Arnhem, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, S. L. (2011). Perceptions of fairness and opportunity to perform on CAT in personnel selection. Paper presented at the International Association of Computer Adaptive Testing Conference, Pacific Grove, CA.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, S. L. & Meyer, J. M. (2014). The mobile revolution: Measurement equivalence and mobile device administration. In T. Kantrowitz & C. M. Reddock (Chairs), Shaping the future of mobile assessment: Research and practice update. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, S. L., Grelle, D., & Borneman, M. (2009). Computer adaptive measures of cognitive ability: Validity and utility. In M. S. Fetzer (Chair), Validity and utility of computer adaptive testing in personnel selection. Symposium conducted at the 24th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, S. L, Meyer, J. M., & Fursman, P. (2015, April). What exactly drives positive reactions to mobile device administration? In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: The next chapter. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Hausknecht, J., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Cornell University ILR School, ILR Collection.Google Scholar

Illingworth, J., Morelli, N., Scott, J. C., & Boyd, S. (2014). Internet-based, unproctored assessments on mobile and non-mobile devices: Usage, measurement equivalence, and outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 25–34.Google Scholar

Impelman, K. (2013). Mobile assessment: Who’s doing it and how it impacts selection. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: Where are we now? Symposium presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar

International Testing Commission. (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143–171.Google Scholar

Kantrowitz, T. M. (2014). Global assessment trends report. Technical report. Alpharetta, GA: CEB.Google Scholar

Kantrowitz, T. M., & Dainis, A. (2015). How secure are unproctored pre-employment tests? Analysis of inconsistent test scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 605–616.Google Scholar

Kantrowitz, T. M., & Gutierrez, S. (2013). The security of employment testing: Practices that keep pace with evolving organizational demands and technology innovations. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50, 33–42.Google Scholar

Kantrowitz, T. M., Fetzer, M. S., & Dawson, C. R. (2011). Computer adaptive testing (CAT): A faster, smarter, and more secure approach to pre-employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 227–232.Google Scholar

King, D., Ryan, A. M., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2014). Mobile and PC delivered assessments: Comparison of scores and reactions. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar

King, D., Ryan, A. M., Kantrowitz, T. M., Grelle, G., & Dainis, A. (2015). Mobile Internet testing: An analysis of equivalence, individual differences, and reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(4), 382-394.Google Scholar

Kinney, T. B., Lawrence, A., & Change, L. (2014). Understanding the mobile experience: Data across device and industry. In T. Kantrowitz & C. M. Reddock (Chairs), Shaping the future of mobile assessment: Research and practice update. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar

Kluemper, D. H., & Rosen, P. A. (2009). Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking web sites. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 567–580.Google Scholar

Landers, R. N., Reddock, C.M., Cavanaugh, K.J., & Proaps, A.B. (2014). Talent assessment using mobile devices. Paper presented in T. Kantrowitz (Chair) Shaping the future of mobile assessment: Research and practice update. Symposium presented at the 29^th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar

Lawrence, A., Wasko, L., Delgado, K., Kinney, T., & Wolf, D. (2013). Does mobile assessment administration impact psychological measurement? In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: Where are we now? Symposium presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar

Lievens, F., & Burke, E. (2011). Dealing with the threats inherent in unproctored Internet testing of cognitive ability: Results from a large-scale operational test program. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 817–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715–738.Google Scholar

Makransky, G., & Glas, C. (2011). Unproctored Internet test verification: Using adaptive confirmation testing. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 608–630.Google Scholar

Mather, T. (2015). Retrieved from www.ljresearch.co.uk/smartwatch-unlikely-to-cause-the-next-mobile-revolution/.Google Scholar

Maynes, D. (2012). Busted! Tricks can be played by anti-cheaters too. Retrieved from www.caveon.com/busted-tricks-can-be-played-by-anti-cheaters-too/ (accessed April 24, 2014).Google Scholar

McClure, T.K., & Boyce, A. S. (2015). Selection testing: An updated look at trends in mobile device usage. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: The next chapter. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449–458.Google Scholar

Milanesi, C. (2015). Retrieved from www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/US-Smartwatch-Market-Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time-Yet.Google Scholar

Moclaire, C., Middleton, E., Fox, B., Foster, C., & Prettyman, T. (2012). Balancing security and efficiency in limited-size computer adaptive test libraries. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar

Morelli, N. A., Mahan, R. P., & Illingworth, A. J. (2014). Establishing the measurement equivalence of online selection assessments delivered on mobile versus non mobile devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morelli, N. A., Illingworth, A. J., Scott, J. C., & Lance, C. E. (2012). Are Internet-based, unproctored assessments on mobile and non-mobile devices equivalent? In J. C. Scott (Chair), Chasing the tortoise: Zeno’s paradox in technology-based assessment. Symposium presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Nye, C. D., Do, B. R., Drasgow, F., & Fine, S. (2008). Two-step testing in employee selection: Is score inflation a problem? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 112–120.Google Scholar

Pace, V., & Borman, W. (2006). The use of warnings to discourage faking on non-cognitive inventories. In M. Peterson and R. Griffith (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior. Information Age Publishing. pp. 281–302.Google Scholar

Parker, B. N., & Meade, A. (2015). Smartphones in selection: Exploring measurement invariance using item response theory. In N. Morelli (Chair), Mobile devices in talent assessment: The next chapter. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Pearlman, K. (2009). Unproctored Internet testing: Practical, legal, and ethical concerns. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 14–19.Google Scholar

Schneider, R. J., McLellan, R. A., Kantrowitz, T. M., Houston, J. S., & Borman, W. C. (2009). Criterion-related validity of an innovative CAT-based personality measure. Proceedings from the GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.Google Scholar

Smittle, P. (1993). Computer adaptive testing: A new era. Journal of Development Education, 17, 8–10.Google Scholar

Stogner, J. M., Miller, B. L., & Marcum, C. D. (2013). Learning to e-cheat: A criminological test of Internet facilitated academic cheating. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24, 175–199.Google Scholar

Sullivan, J. (2014). The power has shifted to the candidate, so current recruiting practices will stop working. Retrieved from www.eremedia.com/ere/the-power-has-shifted-to-the-candidate-so-current-recruiting-practices-will-stop-working/.Google Scholar

Templer, K. J., & Lange, S. R. (2008). Internet testing: Equivalence between proctored lab and unproctored field settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1216–1228.Google Scholar

Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 2–10.Google Scholar

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lanivich, S. E., Roth, P. L., & Junco, E. (2013). Social media for selection: Validity and adverse impact potential for a Facebook-based assessment. Journal of Management.Google Scholar

Whitley, B. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.Google Scholar

Wright, N. A., Meade, A. W., & Gutierrez, S. L. (2014). Using invariance to examine cheating in unproctored ability tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar