Now more than ever, efficiency is at a premium for employers and educational institutions, as both are trying to find ways to do more with less time and fewer resources. To meet this demand, institutions might consider using a non-proctored assessment (vs. a proctored one), meaning they can be taken from any location with a high-speed Internet connection, and at any time convenient to the test taker.
Tests administered in a non-proctored environment are traditionally not considered to be as valid as proctored test administrations, as it is difficult to verify the intended test taker’s identity, as well as the extent to which the test taker used resources and aids during the testing period. As such, a low score is certainly an indication of an ability or skill deficit, while a passing score might not be as nearly as predictive.
Therefore, scores are to be used as guidelines for identifying job seekers or students who should be invited to enter the formal hiring or admissions process. By adopting what is known as a “hurdle” approach, where applicants must first meet minimum requirements before continuing the selection process, institutions can save valuable time and resources.
Research conducted by Wonderlic suggests that non-proctored test scores are highly related to their proctored counterparts. For example, we recently examined data from over 50,000 job applicants who first completed the Wonderlic Personnel Test - Quicktest (WPT-Q) (an abbreviated, non-proctored cognitive ability test administered remotely) followed by the Wonderlic Personnel Test – Revised (WPT-R) (a proctored cognitive ability test administered on-site). The correlation between job applicants’ scores on the non-proctored and proctored tests was extremely high (0.86).
Hence, non-proctored assessments can provide valuable information during the selection process, similar to that of their proctored counterparts.
What questions do you have about non-proctored testing?