M. K. Oniyide, A. O. Kolawole, Emmanuel Gbenga Dada


The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) have over the years been in the news over the use of Computer Based Test (CBT) mode over the Paper Pencil Test (PPT) mode for its Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME). This study examines the two test modes, and also tries to ascertain which particular mode makes the unified tertiary matriculation examination more comfortable for the students in privileged environment and those in the rural areas. Predicting student performance can be useful to the managements in many contexts. The purpose of this research work is to do a performance evaluation of computer-based and paper-based version of Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) test data conducted in the previous year using a robust Support Vector Machine model. This work attempts to determine whether there is any difference in the performance of student when comparing CBT to identical PPT test mode and also investigate the levels of malpractices involved in both test mode. Experimental results demonstrated CBT has better predictive accuracy and root mean square error compared to PPT.

Full Text:



Abubakar, S. A. and Adebayo, O. F. (2014). Using Computer Based Test Method for the Conduct of Examination in Nigeria: Prospects, Challenges and Strategies. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 5 No 2, pp. 47-55.

Alabi, A. T., Isaa, A. O., and Oyekunle R. A. (2012). The Use of Computer Based Testing Method for the Conduct of Examinations at the University of Ilorin, International Journal of Learning & Development, ISSN 2164-4063 2012, Vol. 2, No. 3.

Alessi, S. M. andTrollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development. – Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 205-243.

Bernt, F.M., Bugbee, A.C. and Arceo R.D. (1990). Factors influencing student resistance to computer administered testing, J. Res. Comput. Educ. Vol. 22. – № 3. – P. 265-275.

Bugbee Jr., A. C. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, pp. 282–299.

Blanzieri, E. and A. Bryl, 2007. Evaluation of the highest probability SVM nearest neighbor classifier with variable relative error cost. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Email and Anti- Spam, Aug. 2-3, Mountain View, California, USA., pp. 5-9.

Bodmann, S. M. and Robinson, D. H. (2004). Speed and Performance Differences among Computer Based and Paper-Pencil Tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 51 – 60.

Cortes, C. andVapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector network. Machine Learning, 20, 1-25.

Cornelia C, Jivko S, Adrian S and Vasant H. (2007). Glycosylation site prediction using ensembles of support vector machine classifiers.

Gunn, S. R. (1998). Support vector machines for classification and regression. Retrieved from the Support Vector Machines website: Gunn1998.pdf

Peter, C., Bill, I. and David, S. (2004). Using computers for Assessment in medicine. British Med. J., 329(7466):606-609.

Sorana-Daniela, B., and Lorentz, J. (2007). Computer-based testing on physical chemistry topic: A case study. Inter. J. Educ. Develop. using Info. Com. Technol., 3(1): 94-95.

Oduntan, O.E., Ojuawo, O.O. and Oduntan, E.A. (2015). A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in Paper Pencil Test (PPT) and Computer Based Test (CBT) Examination System. Research Journal of Educational Studies and Review Vol. 1 (1), pp. 24-29.

Jacobs, L. C., and Chase, C. I. (2011). Developing and Using Tests Effectively: A Guide for Faculty. – San Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,, 2011.

Kim, D. H., and Huynh, H. (2007). Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil versions of Algebra and Biology assessments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(4). Available from

Kim, J. P. (1999). Meta-analysis of equivalence of computerized and P&P tests on ability measures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.

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.

Malik Yousef, Segun Jung, Louise C Showe and Michael K Showe (2007). Recursive Cluster Elimination (RCE) for classification and feature selection from gene expression data. BMC Bioinformatics, 8:144 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-144

Mead, A. D., and Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-458.

Mazzeo J., and Harvey A. L. (1988). The Equivalence of Scores from Automated and Conventional Educational and Psychological Tests. – College Entrance Examination Board, New York, College Board Rep. 88-8.

Olsen J. B., Maynes D. D., Slawson D., and Ho K. (1986). Comparison and equating of paper-administered, computer-administered and computerized adaptive tests of achievement. – San Francisco, CA,1986.

Paek, P. (2005). Recent trends in comparability studies (PEM Research Report 05-05). Available from

Rasmussen K., Northrup P., and Lee R. (1997).Implementing Web-based instruction // Web-Based Instruction. NJ: Educational Technology, pp. 341-346.

Ravitz, J. (1997).Evaluating learning networks: A special challenge for Web-based instruction. – NJ: Educational Technology, 1997. – P. 361-368.

Shavelson R. J., Baxter G. P., and Pine J. (1992).Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality // Educ. Res. – 1992. – Vol. 21. – №. 4. – P. 22-27.

Vapnik, V. N. (1998). Statistical Learning Theory; Wiley: New York, NY, USA.

Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T. E., and Olson, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of testing mode effects in Grade K–12 mathematics tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 219-238.

Wise S. L. andPlake, B. S. (1989). Research on the effects of administering tests via computers, Educ.Meas.: Issues Practice, vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 5-10.

Yousef, M, Jung, S, Showe L.C., and Showe, M. (2007). Recursive cluster elimination (RCE) for classification and feature selection from gene expression data. The Wistar Institute, Systems Biology Division, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. BMC Bioinformatics.

Zhang, X., Lu, X., Shi, Q., Xu, X. Q., Leung, H.C., Harris, L., Iglehart, J., Miron, A., Liu, J., Wong. W. (2006). Recursive SVM feature selection and sample classification for mass-spectrometry and microarray data. BMC Bioinformatics, 7(1):197


  • There are currently no refbacks.