Seventy-five subjects (Naval F-14 and E-2C crew members) were administered computer-based and paper-based tests of threat-parameter knowledge represented as a semantic network in order to determine the relative reliabilities and validities of these two assessment modes. Estimates of internal consistencies, equivalences, and discriminant validities were computed. It was established that: (1) computer-based and paper-based measures (i.e., test score and average degree of confidence) are not significantly different in reliability or internal consistency; (2) for computer-based and paper-based measures, the average degree of confidence has a higher reliability than does the average response latency, which in turn has a higher reliability than do the test scores; (3) a few of the findings are ambivalent since some results suggest that equivalence estimates for computer-based and paper-based measures (i.e., test score and average degree of confidence) are about the same, and another suggests that these estimates are different; and (4) the discriminant validity of the computer-based measures was superior to that of the paper-based measures. The results support the findings of only some of the research. This highlights the fact that the reported literature on this subject is contradictory and inconclusive. Seven tables present study data. (Author/SLD)