Formulating-Hypotheses (F-H) items present a situation and ask the examinee to generate as many explanations for it as possible. This study examined the generalizability, validity, and examinee perceptions of a computer-delivered version of the task. Eight F-H questions were administered to 192 graduate students. Half of the items restricted examinees to 7 words per explanation, and half allowed up to 15 words. Generalizability results showed high interrater agreement, with tests of between two and four items scored by one judge achieving coefficients in the .80s. As in studies of paper-and-pencil versions, validity analyses found that although F-H was highly reliable, it was only weakly related to Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) General Test scores, differing primarily in its strong relations to a measure of ideational fluency. Versions of F-H based on different response limits tapped different abilities, with items employing the 15-word constraint appearing to be more useful for graduate assessment. Although the overwhelming majority of examinees found the F-H interface easy to use, some did experience difficulty, suggesting the possibility that computer familiarity constitutes a source of irrelevant variance in F-H scores. Twelve tables and two figures illustrate the analysis. Five appendixes contain test directions, an F-H scoring ruburic, ideation fluency measure, accomplishments questionnaire, and an opinion questionnaire. (Contains 30 references.) (Author/SLD)