American Psychological Association. (2006). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F., & Hülsheger, U. R. (2010). Applicant reactions in selection: Comprehensive meta-analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartram, D. (2011). Contributions of the EFPA Standing Committee on Tests and Testing to Standards and Good Practice. European Psychologist, 16(2), 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartram, D., & Burke, E. (2013). Industrial/organizational testing case studies. In Wollack, J. A. & Fremer, J. J. (Eds.), Handbook of test security (pp. 313–332). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Black, M. M., & Matula, K. (2000). Essentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Blickle, G. (2003). Ethics. In Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment, vol. 1 (pp. 373–378). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Burke, E. (2009). Preserving the integrity of online testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(1), 35–38.Google Scholar

Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W.-Z., Zhang, J.-X., & Zhang, J.-P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181–199.Google Scholar

Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593–603.Google Scholar

Church, A. T. (2009). Prospects for an integrated trait and cultural psychology. European Journal of Personality, 23, 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, R., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers and Education, 59(2), 661–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.Google Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Evers, A., Muñiz, J., Bartram, D., Boben, D., Egeland, J., Fernández-Hermida, J. R., Frans, O., Gintiliené, G., Hagemeister, C., Halama, P., Iliescu, D., Jaworowska, A., Jimenez, P., Manthouli, M., Matesic, K., Schittekatte, M., Sümer, C., & Urbánek, T. (2011). Testing practices in the 21th century. Developments and European Psychologist’s Opinions. European Psychologists, 17(4), 300–319.Google Scholar

Foster, D. (2013). Security issues in technology-based testing. In Wollack, J. A. & Fremer, J. J. (Eds.), Handbook of test security (pp. 39–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gierl, M. J., & Haladyna, T. M. (2013). Automatic item generation: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.Google Scholar

Gregory, R. J. (2011). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Harrison, P. L., & Oakland, T. (2015). ABAS-3: Intervention planner. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar

Iliescu, D. (2014). A quantitative segmentation of stakeholders’ opinions about legal test usage. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the International Test Commission, San Sebastian, Spain, July.Google Scholar

International Test Commission. (2001). International guidelines for test use. International Journal of Testing, 1(2), 93–114.Google Scholar

International Test Commission. (2012). International guidelines on quality control in scoring, test analysis, and reporting of test scores. Retrieved from www.intestcom.org (accessed March 6, 2017).Google Scholar

International Test Commission. (2014). International Guidelines on the Security of Tests, Examinations, and Other Assessments. Retrieved from www.intestcom.org (accessed March 6, 2017).Google Scholar

International Test Commission. (2015). International Guidelines for Practitioner Use of Test Revisions, Obsolete Tests, and Test Disposal. Retrieved from www.intestcom.org (accessed March 6, 2017).Google Scholar

ISO. (2011). International standard for assessment service delivery procedures and methods to assess people in work and organizational settings ISO 10667-2. Retrieved from www.iso.org/iso/search.htm?qt=iso+10667-2&sort=rel&type=simple&published=on (accessed January 10, 2015).Google Scholar

Joinson, A. N., & Paine, C. B. (2007). Self-disclosure, privacy and the Internet. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., & Reips, U.-D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 237–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O., Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Kaufman, N. L. (2005). Essentials of KABC-II assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Kingston, N. M., Tiemann, G. C., Miller, H. L., & Foster, D. (2012). An analysis of the discrete-option multiple-choice item type. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54(1), 3–19.Google Scholar

Leach, M., & Oakland, T. (2007). Ethics standards impacting test development and use: A review of 31 ethics codes impacting practices in 35 countries. International Journal of Testing, 7, 71–88.Google Scholar

Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar

Lord, W. (2007). NEO PI-R: A guide to interpretation and feedback in a work context. London: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Nel, J. A., Valchev, V. H., Rothmans, S., van de Vijver, F., Meiring, D., & de Bruin, G. P. (2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 915–948.Google Scholar

Oakland, T. (2012). Testing resources help promote test development and use in emerging countries. Presented at the 8th Conference of the International Test Commission, Amsterdam, July.Google Scholar

Oakland, T., & Harrison, P. L. (2008). ABAS-II: Clinical use and interpretation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Phelps, R. P. (2009). Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Ramsay, M. C., Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2002). Essentials of behavioral assessment. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. C. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Traub, R. (1997). Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vannest, K. J., Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2008). BASC-2 intervention guide. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar

Vannest, K. J., Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2009). BASC-2 classroom intervention guide workbook 1: Externalizing and school problems. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar

Association of Test Publishers. (2002). Guidelines for computer-based testing. Washington, DC: Association of Test Publishers.Google Scholar

The Council of Chief State School Officers & Association of Test Publishers. (2013). Operational best practices for statewide large-scale assessment programs. Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers and Association of Test Publishers.Google Scholar

Davey, T., & Nering, M. (2002). Controlling item exposure and maintaining item security. In Mills, C. N., Potenza, M. T.., Fremer, J. J., & Ward, W. C. (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundations for future assessments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Folk, V. G., & Smith, R. L. (2002). Models for delivery of CBTs. In Mills, C., Potenza, M., Fremer, J., & Ward, W. (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 41–66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Foster, D. F., & Miller, H. L., Jr. (2009). A new format for multiple-choice testing: Discrete option multiple choice. Results from early studies. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51(4), 355–369.Google Scholar

Foster, D. F., & Miller, H. L., Jr. (2012). Global test security issues and ethical challenges. In Leach, M. M., Stevens, M. J., Lindsay, G., Ferrero, A., & Korkut, Y (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Green, B. F. (1988). Construct validity of computer-based tests. In Wainer, H. & Braun, H. I. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 77–86). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

International Test Commission. (2014). The ITC Guidelines on the Security of Tests, Examinations, and Other Assessments. Retrieved from www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_security.pdf (accessed November 15, 2016).Google Scholar

Maynes, D. (2009) Caveon speaks out on IT exam security: The last five years. Retrieved from http://caveon.com/articles/it_exam_security.htm (accessed November 15, 2016).Google Scholar

Merriam-Webster.com. (2016). Definition of security. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/security (accessed October 22, 2016).Google Scholar

Merriam-Webster.com. (2016). Definition of risk. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/risk (accessed October 22, 2016).Google Scholar

Tippins, N. T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O., & Shepherd, W. (2006) Unproctored internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59, 189–225. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00909.xGoogle Scholar

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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google Scholar

Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372–374.Google Scholar

Berger, J. (2015). Cybervetting: A common antecedents model. Doctoral dissertation at Bowling Green State University.Google Scholar

Berger, J., & Zickar, M. J. (2016). Theoretical propositions about cybervetting: A common antecedents model. In Landers, R. & Schmidt, G. (Eds.), Social Media and Personnel Selection (pp. 43–57). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Berkelaar, B. L., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2015). Online employment screening and digital career capital exploring employers’ use of online information for personnel selection. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 84–113.Google Scholar

Bruno, B. (2016, January 11). Seven strategies your company should consider to attract talent in 2016. Retrieved from https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/recruiting-tips/2016/7-strategies-your-company-should-consider-to-attract-talent-in-2?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (accessed January 11, 2016).Google Scholar

Caers, R., & Castelyns, V. (2011). LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: The influences and biases of social network sites in recruitment and selection procedures. Social Science Computer Review, 29, 437–448.Google Scholar

CareerBuilder. (2015). 35 percent of employers less likely to interview applicants they can’t find online. Retrieved from www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=5%2F14%2F2015&id=pr893&ed=12%2F31%2F2015 (accessed January 6, 2016).Google Scholar

Challenger, Gray, & Christmas, Inc. (2014, May 13). 60% of employers check your social media. Retrieved from www.challengergray.com/press/press-releases/survey-60-employers-checking-your-social-media (accessed January 6, 2016).Google Scholar

Davison, H. K., Maraist, C., & Bing, M. N. (2011). Friend or foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 153–159.Google Scholar

Davison, H. K., Maraist, C. C., Hamilton, R. H., & Bing, M. N. (2012). To screen or not to screen? Using the Internet for selection decisions. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(1), 1–21.Google Scholar

Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 39–43.Google Scholar

Drake, J. R., & Furner, C. (2015). Screening job candidates with social media: A manipulation of disclosure requests. Paper presented at the 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar

eBizMBA. (2016, January). Top 15 most popular social networking sites, January 2016. Retrieved from www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites (accessed January 4, 2016).Google Scholar

Elefant, C. (2011). Power of social media: Legal issues and best practices for utilities engaging social media. The Energy Law Journal, 32, 1–55.Google Scholar

El Ouirdi, M., Segers, J., El Ouirdi, A., & Pais, I. (2015). Predictors of job seekers’ self-disclosure on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 1–12.Google Scholar

European Union. (1995). Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046 (accessed January 11, 2016).Google Scholar

European Union. (2002). Directive on privacy and electronic communications. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/individuals/index_en.htm (accessed January 11, 2016).Google Scholar

Harrison, J. A., & Budworth, M. H. (2015). Unintended consequences of a digital presence: Employment-related implications for job seekers. Career Development International, 20(4), 294–314.Google Scholar

Hazelton, A. S., & Terhorst, A. (2015). Legal and ethical considerations for social media hiring practices in the workplace. The Hilltop Review, 7(2), 53–59.Google Scholar

Kafka, P. (2013, May 18). Why Yahoo doesn’t think that Tumblr has a porn problem. Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20130518/why-yahoo-doesnt-think-tumblr-has-a-porn-problem/ (accessed January 4, 2016).Google Scholar

Karl, K., & Peluchette, J. (2013). Possibilities and pitfalls of using online social networking in human resources management. Psychology for Business Success, 4, 119–138.Google Scholar

Kluemper, D. H., & Rosen, P. A. (2009). Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking web sites. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(6), 567–580.Google Scholar

Kluemper, D. H., Rosen, P. A., & Mossholder, K. W. (2012). Social networking websites, personality ratings, and the organizational context: More than meets the eye? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(5), 1143–1172.Google Scholar

Landers, R. N., & Callan, R. C. (2014). Validation of the beneficial and harmful work-related social media behavioral taxonomies development of the work-related social media questionnaire. Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 628–646.Google Scholar

Marcus, B., Machilek, F., and Schultz, A. (2006). Personality in cyberspace: Personal web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 6, 1014–1031.Google Scholar

Martin, A. J. (2016). Top EU data cop slams Safe Harbor replacement as inadequate. The Register. Retreived from www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/31/eu_data_boss_says_safe_harbor_replacement_is_inadequate/ (accessed June 8, 2016).Google Scholar

McFarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1653–1677.Google Scholar

Morans, J. (2013). The problem with LinkedIn endorsements – and 6 quick fixes. Retrieved from www.thesocialwhat.com/linkedin-endorsements-6-quick-fixes/ (accessed June 6, 2016).Google Scholar

Na, J., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. J. (2015). When a new tool is introduced in different cultural contexts individualism – Collectivism and social network on Facebook. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 355–370.Google Scholar

Nikolaou, I. (2014). Social networking web sites in job search and employee recruitment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 179–189.Google Scholar

Ollington, N., Gibb, J., & Harcourt, M. (2013). Online social networks: An emergent recruiter tool for attracting and screening. Personnel Review, 42(3), 248–265.Google Scholar

Ornstein, D., Collins, E. C., & Tarasewicz, Y. (2014). Social media in the workplace around the world 3.0. Retrieved from www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/social-media-in-the-workplace-2014.pdf (accessed January 14, 2016).Google Scholar

Park, G., Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., … & Seligman, M. E. (2015). Automatic personality assessment through social media language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 934–952.Google Scholar

Ramasamy, V., & Raman, A. (2014). Recruitment in the social media age: An exploratory study. Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference, June 16–18.Google Scholar

Roberts, S. J., & Clark, L. A. (2008). MySpace, Facebook, and other social networking sites: How are they used by human resource personnel? Delta Pi Epsilon, 35.Google Scholar

Rose, A., Timm, H., Pogson, C., Gonzalez, J., Appel, E., & Kolb, N. (2010). Developing a cybervetting strategy for law enforcement (Special Report). Retrieved from www.iacpsocialmedia.org/Portals/1/documents/CybervettingReport.pdf (accessed November 10, 2012).Google Scholar

Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Thatcher, J. B. (2016). Social media in employee-selection-related decisions: A research agenda for uncharted territory. Journal of Management, 42, 269–298.Google Scholar

Roulin, N. (2014). The influence of employers’ use of social networking websites in selection, online self‐promotion, and personality on the likelihood of faux pas postings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(1), 80–87.Google Scholar

Scott, D. (2013, May). The 10 most popular social networks outside the U.S. Retrieved from www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/05/10-popular-social-networks-from-around-the-world-you-should-know-about/ (accessed January 4, 2016).Google Scholar

Scott, M. (2015, December 15). Europe approves tough new data protection rules. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/technology/eu-data-privacy.html (accessed January 11, 2016).Google Scholar

SHRM Staffing Research. (2008). Online technologies and their impact on recruitment strategies. Retrieved from www.shrm.org (accessed January 6, 2016).Google Scholar

Sinar, E., & Winter, J. (2012). Social media and selection: How online information helps – and hurts – your hiring practice. DDIDirections, 1–9.Google Scholar

SIOP. (2015, December 16). SIOP announces top 10 workplace trends for 2016. Retrieved from www.siop.org/article_view.aspx?article=1467 (accessed January 6, 2016).Google Scholar

Snyder, J., & Shahani‐Denning, C. (2012). Fairness reactions to personnel selection methods: A look at professionals in Mumbai, India. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(3), 297–307.Google Scholar

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lanivich, S. E., Roth, P. L., & Junco, E. (2016). Social media for selection? Validity and adverse impact potential of a Facebook-based assessment. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1811–1835.Google Scholar

van Zoonen, W., Verhoeven, J. W., & Vliegenthart, R. (2016). How employees use Twitter to talk about work: A typology of work-related tweets. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 329–339.Google Scholar

Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). e-Perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123–132.Google Scholar

Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28–49.Google Scholar

Zide, J. (2016). LinkedIn versus resumes: The impact of person-organization fit. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar

Zide, J., Elman, B., & Shahani-Denning, C. (2014). LinkedIn and recruitment: How profiles differ across occupations. Employee Relations, 36(5), 583–604.Google Scholar

Arthur, W., 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(2), 113–123.Google Scholar

Bejar, I. I. (1991). A methodology for scoring open-ended architectural design problems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 522–532Google Scholar

Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum-likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.Google Scholar

Breithaupt, K., & Hare, D. (2016). Automated test assembly. In Drasgow, F. (Ed.), Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement (pp. 128–141). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Burstein, J., Tetreault, J., & Madnani, N. (2013). The e-rater automated essay scoring system. Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (e-book) (pp. 55–67). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar

Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143–159.Google Scholar

Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2016). Mobile psychological assessment. In Drasgow, F. (Ed.), Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement (pp. 206–216). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chow, S., & Knelf, E. H. (2015, April). Gamifying psychometric assessments: Driving engagement for more data. Paper presented at 30th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

De Soete, B., Lievens, F., Oostrom, J. and Westerveld, L. (2013), Alternative predictors for dealing with the diversity–validity dilemma in personnel selection: The constructed response multimedia test. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 239–250.Google Scholar

Desmarais, L. B., Masi, D. L., Olson, M. J., Barbera, K. M., & Dyer, P. J. (1994, April). Scoring a multimedia situational judgment test: IBM’s experience. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Doverspike, D., Arthur, W., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2012). Mobile mania: Impact of device type on remotely delivered assessment. Panel presentation at the 27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Drasgow, F. (1991, April). Chair of symposium “Multi-media computerized assessments of individuals.” Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis.Google Scholar

Drasgow, F. (Ed.). (2016). Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Drasgow, F., Luecht, R., & Bennett, R. (2006). Technology and testing. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 471–515). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Google Scholar

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

Gierl, M. J., Lai, H., & Turner, S. (2012). Using automatic item generation to create multiple-choice items for assessments in medical education. Medical Education, 46, 757–765.Google Scholar

Gierl, M. J., Zhou, J., & Alves, C. (2008). Developing a taxonomy of item models types to promote assessment engineering. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 7, 1–51.Google Scholar

Glas, C. A. W., & van der Linden, W. J. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing with item cloning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 247–261.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

Gutierrez, S. L., & Meyer, J. M. (2013, April). Assessments on the go: applicant reactions to mobile testing. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar

Hanson, M. A., Borman, W. C., Mogilka, H. J., Manning, C., & Hedge, J. W. (1999). Computerized assessment of skill for a highly technical job. In Drasgow, F. & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (Eds.), Innovations in computerized assessment (pp. 197–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Harmes, J. C., Parshall, C. G., Rendina-Gobioff, G., Jones, P. K., Githens, M. P., & Dennard, A. (2004, November). Integrating usability methods into the CBT development process: Case study of a technology literacy assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar

Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, S. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54.Google Scholar

Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. K. (1983). Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar

Impelman, K. (2013, April). Mobile assessment: Who is doing it and how it impacts selection. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Houston, TX.Google Scholar

Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258–272.Google Scholar

Kustis, G. A., Amorati, A., & Parachuri, S. (2015, April). Collecting data for new tests using Facebook games. Paper presented at 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Lievens, F., Burke, E., & Ditton, T. (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.Google Scholar

Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Westerveld, L. (2015). Understanding the building blocks of selection procedures: Effects of response fidelity on performance and validity. Journal of Management, 41, 1604–1627.Google Scholar

Luecht, R. M., & Nungester, R. J. (1998). Some practical applications of computerized adaptive sequential testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 229–249.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

Morelli, N. A., Mahan, R. P., & Illingworth, A. J. (2014). Establishing the measurement equivalence of online selection assessments delivered on mobile versus nonmobile devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 124–138.Google Scholar

Munson, L. (2013). New year, new workplace! SIOP Item of Interest. Retrieved from www.siop.org/article_view.aspx?article=1203 (accessed January 12, 2016).Google Scholar

Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335.Google Scholar

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.) Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar

Nye, C. D., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Assessing goodness of fit: Simple rules of thumb simply do not work. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 548–570.Google Scholar

Olson, J. B., & Keenan, P. A., (1991, June). Assessing administrative decision making skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council, Chicago.Google Scholar

Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Multimedia situational judgment tests: The medium creates the message. In Weekley, J. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 253–278). Mahwah, NJ: SIOP Frontiers Series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Drasgow, F., Moberg, P. J., Mead, A. D., Keenan, P. A., and Donovan, M. A. (1998), Interactive video assessment of conflict resolution skills. Personnel Psychology, 51, 1–24.Google Scholar

Oostrom, J. K., Born, M. Ph., Serlie, A. W., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2010). Webcam testing: Validation of an innovative open-ended multimedia test. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 532–550.Google Scholar

Oostrom, J. K., Born, M. P., Serlie, A. W., & van der Molen, H. T. (2011). A multimedia situational test with a constructed-response format. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 78–88.Google Scholar

Parshall, C. G., Harmes, J. C., Davey, T., & Pashley, P. J. (2010). Innovative item types for computerized testing. In van der Linden, W. J. & Glas, C. A. W. (Eds.), Elements of adaptive testing (pp. 215–230). New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar

Popp, E., & Coughlin, C. (2015, April). Examining equivalence of closed items in a game-like simulation. Paper presented at 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Richman-Hirsch, W. L, Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Examining the impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 880–887.Google Scholar

Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 61, 331–354.Google Scholar

Sinharay, S., Puhan, G., & Haberman, S.J. (2010) Reporting diagnostic scores in educational testing: Temptations, pitfalls, and some solutions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 553–573.Google Scholar

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & White, L. A. (2012). Adaptive testing with multidimensional pairwise preference items: Improving the efficiency of personality and other noncognitive assessments. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 463–487. doi:10.1177/1094428112444611Google Scholar

Tatsuoka, K. K. (1990). Toward an integration of item response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In Glaser, F. N., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M. G. (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453–488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Templin, J. (2016). Diagnostic assessment: Methods for the reliable measurement of multidimensional abilities. In Drasgow, F. (Ed.), Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement (pp. 285–304). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473–492.Google Scholar

Weiss, D. J., & Gibbons, R. D. (2007). Computerized adaptive testing with the bifactor model. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing. Retrieved from www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/catcentral/pdffiles/cat07weiss&gibbons.pdf (accessed April 3, 2016).Google Scholar

Barrett, G. V., Phillips, J. S., & Alexander, R. A. (1981). Concurrent and predictive validity designs: A critical reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 6–6.Google Scholar

Bauer, T. N., McCarthy, J. M., Anderson, N., Truxillo, D. M., & Salgado, J. (2012). What we know about applicant reactions on attitudes and behavior: Research summary and best practices. SIOP White Paper Series, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar

Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Buster, M. A. (2007). The usefulness of unit weights in creating composite scores: A literature review, application to content validity, and meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4), 689–709.Google Scholar

Breaugh, J. A. (2009). The use of biodata for employee selection: Past research and future directions. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 219–231.Google Scholar

Caligiuri, P., & Paul, K. B. (2010). Selection in multinational organizations. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.), The handbook of employee selection. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Elkins, T. J., & Philips, J. S. (2000). Job context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests: Biodata as an illustrative case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 479–484.Google Scholar

Furtmueller, E., Wilderom, C., & Tate, M. (2011). Managing recruitment and selection in the digital age: e-HRM and resumes. Human Systems Management, 30(4), 243–259.Google Scholar

Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241–293.Google Scholar

Lievens, F., Buyse, T., & Sackett, P. R. (2005). Retest effects in operational selection settings: Development and test of a framework. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 981–1007.Google Scholar

Manroop, L., Boekhorst, J. A., & Harrison, J. A. (2013). The influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection decisions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3512–3533.Google Scholar

Reynolds, D. H., & Dickter, D. N. (2010). Technology and employee selection. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.), The handbook of employee selection. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education. American Psychologist, 56(4), 302.Google Scholar

Stone, D. L., Deadrick, D. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., & Johnson, R. (2015). The influence of technology on the future of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 216–231.Google Scholar

Stone, D. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Johnson, T. L. (2013). Factors affecting the effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 50–70.Google Scholar

Tippins, N. T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(1), 2–10.Google Scholar

Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Computers and Education, 83, 57–63.Google Scholar

Ausburn, L. J. (2012). Learner characteristics and performance in a first-person online desktop virtual environment. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 2(2), 11–24.Google Scholar

Baniqued, P. L., Lee, H., Voss, M. W., Basak, C., Cosman, J. D., Desouza, S., Kramer, A. F. (2013). Selling points: What cognitive abilities are tapped by casual video games? Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 74–86.Google Scholar

Bartram, D. (1987). The development of an automated testing system for pilot selection: The MICROPAT project. Applied Psychology, 36(3–4), 279–298.Google Scholar

Bartram, D., Poots, M., Hayes, S., & Bayliss, R. (1985). The effects of playing video games on performance on tests of tracking ability. Paper presented at the Ninth Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (pp. 484–486). Bournemouth, UK.Google Scholar

Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation and Gaming, 43(6), 729–760.Google Scholar

Bruk-Lee, V., Drew, E. N., & Hawkes, B. (2013). Candidate reactions to simulations and media-rich assessments in personnel selection. In Simulations for personnel selection (pp. 43–60). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Bruk‐Lee, V., Lanz, J., Drew, E. N., Coughlin, C., Levine, P., Tuzinski, K., & Wrenn, K. (2016). Examining applicant reactions to different media types in character‐based simulations for employee selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24(1), 77–91.Google Scholar

Buford, C. C. (2014). Cognitive ability and computer simulation. (Master’s thesis, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee.) Retreived from http://scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=theses (accessed March 29, 2016).Google Scholar

CEB. (2014). Retrieved from www.cebglobal.com/blogs/gamification-in-recruiting-trends-and-best-practices/ (accessed March 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Center for Game Science. (2008). Foldit. Retrieved from http://centerforgamescience.org/blog/portfolio/foldit/ (accessed March 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Crooks, L. A. (1976). The selection and development of assessment center techniques. In Moses, J. L. & Byham, W. C. (Eds.), Applying the assessment center method (pp, 69–88) New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar

De Lisi, R., & Wolford, J. L. (2002). Improving children’s mental rotation accuracy with computer game playing. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(3), 272–282.Google Scholar

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic Mindtrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15) New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dittrich, J. (1977). Realism in business games: A three-game comparison. Simulation and Gaming, 8(2), 201–210.Google Scholar

DuVernet, A. M., & Popp, E. (2014). Gamification of workplace practices. TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 52, 39–44.Google Scholar

Foldit, (n.d.) Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://fold.it/portal/info/faq (accessed March 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Hawkes, B. (2013). Simulation technologies. In Fetzer, M. & Tuzinski (Eds.), K., Simulations for personnel selection (1st ed., pp. 61–82). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Hughes, M. G., Day, E. A., Wang, X., Schuelke, M. J., Arsenault, M. L., Harkrider, L. N., & Cooper, O. D. (2013). Learner-controlled practice difficulty in the training of a complex task: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 80.Google Scholar

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification – a service marketing perspective. Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference. (pp. 17–22) New York: ACM.Google Scholar

IBM. (2011). The FOUR Vs of Big Data. Retrieved from www-01.ibm.com/software/data/bigdata/images/4-Vs-of-big-data.jpg (accessed June 4, 2016).Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization. (2011a) Assessment service delivery – Procedures and methods to assess people in work and organizational settings – Part 1: Requirements for the client. ISO 10667-1:2011(E). Geneva: Author.Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization. (2011b). Assessment service delivery – Procedures and methods to assess people in work and organizational settings – Part 2: Requirements for service providers. ISO 10667-2:2011(E). Geneva: Author.Google Scholar

International Test Commission. (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143–172.Google Scholar

Juul, J. (2003). The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness. Copier, M. and Raessens, J. (Eds). Proceedings of level-up: Digital games research conference (pp. 30–45). Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar

Karweit, N., & Livingston, S. A. (1969). Group versus individual performance and learning in a computer game: An exploratory study. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED032789.pdf (accessed June 4, 2016).Google Scholar

Kelly, R., Greitzer, F., & Hershman, R. (1981). Air defense: A computer game for research in human performance. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar

Landers, R. N. (2015). An introduction to game-based assessment: Frameworks for the measurement of knowledge, skills, abilities and other human characteristics using behaviors observed within videogames. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediation Simulations, 7(4), iv–viii.Google Scholar

Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., Callan, R. C., & Armstrong, M. B. (2015). Psychological theory and the gamification of learning. In Gamification in education and business (pp. 165–186). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2012). Online gaming to find a new job – Examining job seekers’ intention to use serious games as a self-assessment tool. German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung, 26(3), 218–240.Google Scholar

Less Rain. (2012). Insanely Driven. Interact. Film. Retrieved from www.lessrain.co.uk/#/work/insanely-driven (accessed March 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Marriott. (2011). My Marriott Hotel™ opens its doors on Facebook. Retrieved from http://news.marriott.com/2011/06/my-marriott-hotel-opens-its-doors-on-facebook.html (accessed March 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Meneghetti, C., Borella, E., & Pazzaglia, F. (2016). Mental rotation training: Transfer and maintenance effects on spatial abilities. Psychological Research, 80(1), 113–127.Google Scholar

Mennecke, B. E., Hassall, L. M., & Triplett, J. (2008). The mean business of Second Life: Teaching entrepreneurship, technology and e-commerce in immersive environments. MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 4(3), 339.Google Scholar

Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640.Google Scholar

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 239–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Oostrom, J. K., Born, M. P., Serlie, A. W., & van der Molen, H. T. (2011). A multimedia situational test with a constructed-response format. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 78–88.Google Scholar

Quiroga, M. Á, Escorial, S., Román, F. J., Morillo, D., Jarabo, A., Privado, J., … Colom, R. (2015). Can we reliably measure the general factor of intelligence (g) through commercial video games? Yes, we can! Intelligence, 53, 1–7.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. E., Powers, M. E., & Bousquet, L. G. (2011). Video game experience predicts virtual, but not real navigation performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 552–560.Google Scholar

Richman-Hirsch, W. L., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Examining the impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 880.Google Scholar

Riley, P. (n.d.). Should we play? Gamification in assessment and selection. Retrieved from https://ptc.bps.org.uk/sites/ptc.bps.org.uk/files/Documents/Assessment&DevelopmentMatters/Riley-GamificationArticle.pdf (accessed March 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Schreier, J. W., & Komives, J. L. (1977). Assessment of entrepreneurial skills using simulations. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the North American Simulation and Gaming Association, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar

Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer Games and Instruction, 55(2), 503–524.Google Scholar

Shute, V. J., Ke, F., & Wang, L. (2017). Assessment and adaptation in games. In Wouters, P. & van Oostendorp, H. (Eds.), Techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games (pp. 59–78). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Sims, V. K., and Mayer, R. (2002). Domain specificity of spatial expertise: The case of video game players. Applied Cognitive Psychology 16(1), 97–115.Google Scholar

Thornton, G. C., III. (1971). The validity of assessment centers. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association Convention, Denver, CO.Google Scholar

TMP Worldwide. (2010). Reveal by L’Oréal. Case Study.Retrieved from www.tmp.com/upload/library/2780_L’Oreal_Reveal_Case-Study_2010-04-07_APPROVED.pdf (accessed April 24, 2014).Google Scholar

Van Lankveld, G., Schreurs, S., Spronck, P., & Van Den Herik, J. (2011). Extraversion in games. In H. J. van den Herik, H. Iida and A. Plaat (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer and Games Conference 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6515 (pp. 207–220). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Yee, N. (2014). The Proteus Paradox: How online games and virtual worlds change us – And how they don’t. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Zapata-Rivera, D., & Bauer, M. (2012) Exploring the role of games in educational assessment. In Clarke-Midura, J., Mayrath, M., and Robinson, D. (Eds.), Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (pp. 147–169). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar