A small-scale comparison of the equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of student end-of-course evaluations

This study compared responses to two versions of an end-of-course evaluation instrument completed by graduate students: the traditional printed form completed using pencil and paper, and a microcomputer-based form that presented equivalent items and accepted student responses. A finding of no significant difference in favorableness of composite ratings between the two versions prompted the researcher to perform item-by-item analyses of the two instruments. These analyses revealed that ratings of the individual items on one instrument were highly correlated with the ratings of their matched corresponding items on the other instrument. The paper-and-pencil and computerized evaluation instruments were found to be of almost identically high reliability. Possible limitations of the findings and areas for future research are discussed.