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

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ergonomics 2008-09, Vol.51 (9), p.1352-1375
Main Authors: Noyes, Jan M., Garland, Kate J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Applied physiology
Biological and medical sciences
computer vs. paper
Computers
Consumer Behavior
Ergonomics
Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology
Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology
Humans
Job design
Medical sciences
NASA-TLX workload measure
online assessment
performance indices
Reading
Space life sciences
Task analysis
Task Performance and Analysis
User-Computer Interface
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0014-0139
1366-5847
DOI:10.1080/00140130802170387