Thus, Bugbee (1996) concluded that the use of computers really affects testing;
Notwithstanding that CBT and PPT can be equivalent especially when the test developers take responsibility by showing how the equivalent can come by. He stated further that the barriers to
the use of CBT are inadequate test preparation and failure to grasp the unique requirements for
implementing and maintaining them; emphasizing that such factors as the design,
development, administration and user characteristics needed to be considered in using CBT.
Schenkman, Fukuda & Persson (1999) identified one of the numerous variables that impact on
student‟s performance when questions are presented on a computer to be the quality of the
monitor. On the impact of CBT on student attitudes and behavior, Butler (2003) confirmed the
association between a moderate number of tests and better student attitudes; especially that his
respondents were found to be generally more positive toward the proctored, CBT facility than
toward in-class, pencil and paper testing.
Similarly, Donn (1991) found that the mean achievement score was significantly higher
for the computer-based group in a study of the effects of a CBT on the achievement and test
anxiety exploring the relationship between computer anxiety and computer experience and
assessing the affective impact of computerized testing on students. There were neither a
significant difference in text anxiety between the groups, on the one hand nor a significant
relationship between their computer experience and anxiety owing to taking the CBT. The
conclusion reached by the study that if computerized test-taking tasks are kept simple, even
test-takers with minimal computer experience may not be disadvantaged, was informed by
respondents‟ positive reactions toward CBT generally.
Research outcomes have thus supported the fact that when students are motivated and
testing conditions are equivalent, there are no differences between the scores obtained via
computer-based or paper-pencil tests (Lynch, 1997 & Marson, Patry, and Berstein, 2001).
Other research results suggest that although students may be disadvantagged, at the initial
stage, which may account for why Wingenbach (2000) found no significant associations
between academic achievement and students‟ attitudes towards computers, computing anxiety
levels, attitudes towards electronic examinations, or gender by the introduction of CBT, such a
setback was temporary (Ricketts and Wilks, 2002).
Thus the initial low academic achievement in CBT, occasioned by such detrimental
effects as computing and/or test anxiety soon disappeared as later CBT examinations produced
impressive academic achievement for many respondents. The most recent endorsement of this
viewpoint came from Tella and Bashorun (2012) in a study whose results demonstrated that the
University of Ilorin students, their respondents, have positive attitude towards CBT as more
than half of them indicated preference for CBT over PPT in addition to establishing a strong
perception that CBT increase respondents‟ performance in learning. Scalise. & Gifford (2006)