___

• Berberoğlu, G. (2011). Cito Türkiye Öğrenci İzleme Sistemi [Turkey Student
• Monitoring System]. http://www.cito.com.tr. 03.03.2011.
• Bennett, R.E., Braswell, J., Oranje, A., Sandene, B., Kaplan, B., Yan, F. (2008). Does it matter if I take my mathematics test on computer? A second empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(9).
• Bernard E. W. Jr. (1997). Gender Differences in Computer-RelatedAttitudes and Behavior: A Meta-Analysis, Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1-22,
• Bugbee, A. C. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-299.
• Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Chen, Z. (2002). Using the Internet as a learning medium: An exploration of gender difference in the adoption of FaBWeb. In
• Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (Held at Hawaii on 7–10 January 2002).
• Clariana R., & Wallace P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 593-602.
• Drasgow, F., & Olsen-Buchanan, J. B. (1999). Innovations in computerized assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Gallagher, A., Bridgeman, B., & Cahalan, C. (2000). The effect of computer-based tests on racial/ethnic, gender, and language groups (GRE Board Professional Report No. 96–21P). Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.
• Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed-effects analysis of variance and covariance.
• Reviewof Educational Research, 42, 237-288. Goldberg, A., & Pedulla, J.J. (2002). Performance differences according to test mode and computer familiarity on a practice GRE. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(6), 1053-1067.
• Gvozdenko, E., & Chambers, D. (2007). Beyond test accuracy: Benefits of measuring response time in computerised testing. Australasian Journal of
• Educational Technology, 23(4), 542–558. Joosten-ten Brinke, D., van Bruggen, J., Hermans, H., Burgers, J., Giesbers, B., Koper, R., et al. (2007). Modeling assessment for re-use of traditional and new types of assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2721–2741.
• Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Pruskus, V., Vlasenko, A., Seniut, M., Kaklauskas, G., et al. (2010). Biometric and intelligent self-assessment of student progress system. Computers & Education, 55(2), 821–833.
• Kesici, S., Sahin, I., & Akturk, A. O. (2009). Analysis of cognitive learning strategies and computer attitudes, according to college students’ gender and locus of control.
• Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 529–534. Kim, D. H., & Huynh, H. (2007). Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil versions of Algebra and Biology assessments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(4).
• Kingston N. M. (2009). Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for K-12 populations: A synthesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(1), 22-37.
• Leeson H. V. (2006). The mode effect: A literature review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 24.
• Lunz, M. E., & Bergstrom, B. A. (1994). An empirical study of computerized adaptive test administration conditions.Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 251-263.
• McKee, L. M., & Levinson, E. M. (1990). A review of the computerized version of the Self-Directed Search. Career Development Quarterly, 38(4), 325-333.
• Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and- pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 11(4), 449-458.
• Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests: A review of the literature.
• (College Board Report 88-8). New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Neuman, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). Computerization of paper-and-pencil tests:
• When are they equivalent. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 71-83. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer.
• Pomplun, M., Frey, S., & Becker, D.F. (2002). The score equivalence of paper and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 337-354.
• Pomplun, M., & Custer, M. (2005). The score comparability of computerized and paper-and-pencil formats for K-3 reading tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 153-166.
• Pomplun M., Ritchie, T., & Custer M. (2006). Factors in paper-and-pencil and computer reading score differences at the primary grades. Educational Assessment, (2), 127-143.
• Russo, A. (2002). Mixing Technology and Testing, Computer-Based Testing, The School Administrator,http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=10354, 05.2012.
• Schulenberg, S. E., & Yutrzenka, B. A. (1999). The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative effect. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31(2), 315–321.
• Shermis, M. D., & Lombard, D. (1998). Effects of computer-based test administrations on test anxiety and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, (1), 111–123.
• Smith, B. and Caputi, p. (2007). Cognitive interference model ofcomputer anxiety:
• Implications for computer-based assessment, Computers in Human Behavior 23; –1498.
• Thelwall, M. (2000). Computer-based assessment: A versatile educational tool.
• Computers & Education, 34(1), 37–49. Trotter, A. (2001). Testing firms see future market in online assessment, Education Week on the Web 20(4) 6.
• Tseng, H., Macleod, H. A., & Wright, P. (1998). Computer anxiety and measurement of mood change. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(3), 305–316.
• Vispoel,W. P. (2000). Reviewing and changing answers on computerized fixed-item vocabulary tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 371–384.
• Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T. E., & Olson, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of testing mode effects in Grade K–12 mathematics tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 219-238.
• Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T. E., & Olson, J. (2008). Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K-12 assessment: A meta-analysis of testing mode effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 5-24.
• Yuen, H. K., & Ma, W. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.
• Yurdabakan I. (2008). Egitimde Kullanılan Olçme Araclarının Nitelikleri [The reliability and validity of measurement tools]. In Erkan S., Gomleksiz M. (Eds.),
• Egitimde Olcme Ve Degerlendirme [Measurement And Evaluation in Education] (pp. 66). Ankara, Turkey: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım [Nobel Puplisher].