Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Noyes and Garland (2008) concluded that differences between media, where found, appeared to be task specific.
“They concluded that, although equivalence between the media was a challenge, differences, where found, appeared to be task specific.”
From Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension (2018) · cites this paper as Noyes and Garland (2008)
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.
- ORCID
- Noyes, Jan M.
- Venue
- Ergonomics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1352-1375
- ISSN
- 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5847
- OpenAlex
- W2089550626
- Semantic Scholar
- 97c9f9a74b6decc130010e2394983f0ccd94ff73
- 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