Çağıltay, NergizCagiltay, NergizYaman, Seniz-OzalpÖzalp Yaman, ŞenizSoftware EngineeringChemical Engineering2024-07-052024-07-052013141061-37731099-054210.1002/cae.204702-s2.0-84876158664https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20470https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14411/441Cagiltay, Nergiz/0000-0003-0875-9276; Ozalp Yaman, Seniz/0000-0002-4166-0529Using computers for assessment can provide several benefits for educators and test-takers. However, in the literature, there is no consensus on the equivalence of paper-and-pencil (P&P) and computer-based test (CBT) environments. Additionally, these studies fail to address the engineering domain. Our main assumption is that, if we could define the confounding factors to satisfy that these two versions of the tests provide equivalent results, then especially in the first year courses of the engineering education programs, we could get several benefits of the CBT environments. Accordingly, in this study, students' performance on different test modes was evaluated on 209 first year engineering students of a chemistry course. The results of this study showed that there is no significant performance difference between P&P and CBT. By comparing results with the previous studies, this study concludes that personal characteristics of test takers, the features of CBT systems, and the test content are all possible confounding factors when comparing test modes and need to be considered by the implementers. The results of this study show that once these factors are controlled, students' performance on CBTs and P&P tests in chemistry courses will not vary. This finding is encouraging the educators to get benefits of CBTs without any affect on students' performance. (c) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ 21: 287293, 2013; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cae; DOI 10.1002/cae.20470eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccesscomputer-based examstest-mode effectpaper- and pencil-based examsengineering educationArticleQ2Q1212287293WOS:000317521100009