Cited by 354Usability and User Interface DesignOnline and Blended LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent?

Noyes, Jan M., Garland, Kate J.·2008·Ergonomics

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140130802170387

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 105 · Cited by 354

Authors
Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Noyes, Jan M.
Venue
Ergonomics
Published
2008-09
Volume
51
Issue
9
Pages
1352-1375
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
OpenAlex
W2089550626
Cited by
354
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
computer-based tasks, online assessment, user attitudes
MeSH terms
Consumer Behavior, Humans, Paper, Reading, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review