Comprehensive examinations, long a bastion in many doctoral programs, are one of many customs under scrutiny for possible change in a movement towards more authentic means of educational assessment. This preliminary study surveyed chairs of departments of educational administration from universities across the United States to learn how computers and models of alternative assessment are changing the face of comprehensive examinations. Respondents were asked how often doctoral comprehensive examinations were administered, and asked to rate seven purposes derived from the literature on importance for administering comprehensive examinations: accountability; tradition; gatekeeping; recall; rigor; application; and synthesis. They were asked whether or not they used each of four examination modes: handwriting; typing on computer; oral examination; and alternative assessments such as portfolios or performances. Questions also concerned the length of time students had to complete examinations, and rating for each examination mode on a variety of issues: student anxiety; public acceptance; rigor; relevance to program; relevance to future of candidate; faculty work load; and potential for dishonesty. Ninety-one percent of respondents acknowledged that their departments allow students to use a computer as an alternative to handwriting the examination. Many also saw a need for more authentic modes of assessment as part of the doctoral process, although few departments allowed forms other than written or oral for the comprehensive examination. Issues such as academic dishonesty in a computer age, the need for proctoring, and the mix of references and other materials that should be allowed during the examination require further study. Two tables and one figure illustrate data. (Contains 13 references.) (MAS)