The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education-The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators

被引:26
作者
Ranger, Jochen [1 ]
Schmidt, Nico [1 ]
Wolgast, Anett [2 ]
机构
[1] Martin Luther Univ Halle Wittenberg, Dept Psychol, Halle, Saale, Germany
[2] Univ Appl Sci Hannover, Dept Psychol, Hannover, Germany
来源
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY | 2020年 / 11卷
关键词
cheating (education); classification and regression tree (CART); person fit; response time; higher education; LOGNORMAL MODEL; MOTIVATION;
D O I
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568825
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
In this paper, we compare the performance of 18 indicators of cheating on e-exams in higher education. Basis of the study was a field experiment. The experimental setting was a computer assisted mock exam in an introductory course on psychology conducted at a university. The experimental manipulation consisted in inducing two forms of cheating (pre-knowledge, test collusion) in a subgroup of the examinees. As indicators of cheating, we consider well-established person-fit indices (e.g., the U3 statistic), but also several new ones based on process data (e.g., response times). The indicators were evaluated with respect to their capability to separate the subgroup of the cheaters from the remaining examinees. We additionally employed a classification tree for detecting the induced cheating behavior. With this proceeding, we aimed at investigating the detectability of cheating in the day-to-day educational setting where conditions are suboptimal (e.g., tests with low psychometric quality are used). The indicators based on the number of response revisions and the response times were capable to indicate the examinees who cheated. The classification tree achieved an accuracy of 0.95 (sensitivity: 0.42/specificity: 0.99). In the study, the number of revisions was the most important predictor of cheating. We additionally explored the performance of the indicators to predict the specific form of cheating. The specific form was identified with an accuracy of 0.93.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
Alderson J.C., 2009, Language Testing, V26, P621, DOI 10.1177/0265532209346371
[2]  
[Anonymous], INT JOINT C ART INT
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2014, Test Fraud: Statistical Detection and Methodology
[4]   Detection of Test Collusion via Kullback-Leibler Divergence [J].
Belov, Dmitry I. .
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, 2013, 50 (02) :141-163
[5]   Methods of Cheating and Deterrents to Classroom Cheating: An International Study [J].
Bernardi, Richard A. ;
Baca, Ania V. ;
Landers, Kristen S. ;
Witek, Michael B. .
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 2008, 18 (04) :373-391
[6]  
Bishop S, 2017, EDUC PSYCHOL HANDB, P193
[7]   SmcHD1, containing a structural-maintenance-of-chromosomes hinge domain, has a critical role in X inactivation [J].
Blewitt, Marnie E. ;
Gendrel, Anne-Valerie ;
Pang, Zhenyi ;
Sparrow, Duncan B. ;
Whitelaw, Nadia ;
Craig, Jeffrey M. ;
Apedaile, Anwyn ;
Hilton, Douglas J. ;
Dunwoodie, Sally L. ;
Brockdorff, Neil ;
Kay, Graham F. ;
Whitelaw, Emma .
NATURE GENETICS, 2008, 40 (05) :663-669
[8]  
Burlak GN, 2006, ELECT ROBOT AUTO MEC, P161
[9]  
Cizek G., 2017, HDB QUANTITATIVE MET, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315743097
[10]  
Cizek GJ, 2017, EDUC PSYCHOL HANDB, P3