Adaptive testing

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Adaptive testing: effects on user performance

Full text

Pdf (351 KB)

Source

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves table of contents

Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

SESSION: Confidence and Trust table of contents

Pages: 129 - 134

Year of Publication: 2002

ISBN:1-58113-453-3

Authors

Eva Jettmar	Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Clifford Nass	Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Sponsor

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 10, Downloads (12 Months): 71, Citation Count: 1

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/503376.503400 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This study examines the effects of interface adaptation on user performance in HCI and CMC. No studies to date have explored the psychological effects of a combination of software performance monitoring and adaptation. This combination is the focus of the present study. Two competing possible effects of adaptive interfaces are presented: 1) Social facilitation, according to which users with high task confidence should perform better, and users with low task confidence should perform less well because their performance is monitored by the interface; and 2) "choking", according to which users with high task confidence should perform less well, and users with low task confidence should perform better because the interface adapts to their performance. A 2 (adaptive vs. non-adaptive) x 2 (high user task confidence vs. low task confidence) x 2 (HCI vs. CMC) laboratory experiment was conducted. Results indicate that for CMC, the social facilitation explanation holds true, while results for HCI were consistent with the "choking" explanation. Implications for the theory and design of adaptive interfaces are discussed

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Aiello, J. & Kolb, K. Electronic performance monitoring and social context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7 (1993), 537--548.
	2	Aiello, J. & Svec, C. Computer monitoring of work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23 (1993), 537--548.
	3	Barnard, J.J. Using Iitem Response Theory for Test Construction. Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa, 1990.
	4	Alan Cooper, The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity (2nd Edition), Pearson Higher Education, 2004
	5	De Ayala, R.J., Dodd, B.G., Koch, W.R. A simulation and comparison of flexilevel and Bayesian computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 27 (1990), 227--229.
	6	De Beer, M. & Visser, D. Comparability of paper and pencil and computerized versions of the GSAT. South African Journal of Psychology 1 (1998), 37--42.
	7	Oren Etzioni , Daniel Weld, A softbot-based interface to the Internet, Readings in agents, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1997
	8	Geen, R.G. Evaluation apprehension and social facilitation: A reply to Sanders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17 (1981), 252--256.
	9	Graydon, J., et al. The effects of personality on social facilitation whilst performing a sports related task. Journal of Personal and Individual Differences 19, 2 (1995), 265--267.
	10	Griffith, T.L. Monitoring and performance: A comparison of computer and supervisor monitoring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (1993), 549--572.
	11	Guerin, B. Mere presence effects in humans: A review. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 22 (1986), 38--77.
	12	Guerin, B, & Innes, J. Social facilitation and social monitoring: A new look at Zajonc's mere presence hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology 21 (1982), 7--18.
	13	Harkins, S. Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23 (1987), 1--18.
	14	Henly, S., Klebe, K.J., McBride, J.R. & Cudeck, R. Adaptive and conventional versions of the DAT: the first complete test battery comparison. Applied Psychological Measurement 13 (1989), 363--371.
	15	Debby Hindus , Mark S. Ackerman , Scott Mainwaring , Brian Starr, Thunderwire: a field study of an audio-only media space, Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.238-247, November 16-20, 1996, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/240080.240262]
	16	Michael N. Huhns , Munindar P. Singh, Readings in agents, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1997
	17	Katherine Isbister , Terre Layton, Agents: what (or who) are they?, Advances in human-computer interaction (vol. 5), Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 1995
	18	Pat Langley, User modeling in adaptive interfaces, Proceedings of the seventh international conference on User modeling, p.357-370, June 1999, Banff, Canada
	19	Yezdi Lashkari , Max Metral , Pattie Maes, Collaborative interface agents, Readings in agents, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1997
	20	Martin, S. & Knight, J.M. Social facilitation effects resulting from locus of control using human and computer experimenters. Computers in Human Behavior 1 (1986), 123--130.
	21	Marvin Minsky , Doug Riecken, A conversation with Marvin Minsky about agents, Communications of the ACM, v.37 n.7, p.22-29, July 1994 [doi>10.1145/176789.176791]
	22	Picard, R. Does HAL cry digital tears: Emotions and computers, in Stork, D.G. (ed.) HAL's Legacy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.
	23	Byron Reeves , Clifford Nass, The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996
	24	Charles Rich , Candace L. Sidner, COLLAGEN: when agents collaborate with people, Readings in agents, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1997
	25	Rocklin, T.R., et al. Effects and underlying mechanisms of self-adapted testing. Journal of Educational Psychology 87, 1 (1995), 103--116.
	26	Roos, L., Wise, S.L., & Plake, B. The role of item feedback in self adapted testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement 57, 1 (1997), 85--98.
	27	Sanders, G. Driven by distraction: An integrative review of social facilitation theory and research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17 (1981), 227--251.
	28	Ted Selker, COACH: a teaching agent that learns, Communications of the ACM, v.37 n.7, p.92-99, July 1994 [doi>10.1145/176789.176799]
	29	Smith, M.J., et al. Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics 23 (1992), 17--27.
	30	Stanton, J. & Barnes-Farrell, J. Effects of electronic performance monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology 6 (1996), 738--745.
	31	James E. Trumbly , Kirk P. Arnett , Peter C. Johnson, Productivity gains via an adaptive user interface: an empirical analysis, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.40 n.1, p.63-81, Jan. 1994 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1994.1004]
	32	Westin, A. Two key factors that belong in a macroergonomic analysis of electronic monitoring. Applied Ergonomics 23 (1992), 35--42.
	33	Terry Winograd, Bringing design to software, ACM Press, New York, NY, 1996
	34	Zajonc, R. Social facilitation. Science 149 (1965), 269--275.