Cargando…

Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating

Cheating is a common phenomenon in high stakes admission, licensing and university exams and threatens their validity. To detect if some exam questions had been affected by cheating, we simulated how data would look like if some test takers possessed item preknowledge: Responses to a small number of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zimmermann, Stefan, Klusmann, Dietrich, Hampe, Wolfgang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5131967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27907190
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167545
_version_ 1782470974569971712
author Zimmermann, Stefan
Klusmann, Dietrich
Hampe, Wolfgang
author_facet Zimmermann, Stefan
Klusmann, Dietrich
Hampe, Wolfgang
author_sort Zimmermann, Stefan
collection PubMed
description Cheating is a common phenomenon in high stakes admission, licensing and university exams and threatens their validity. To detect if some exam questions had been affected by cheating, we simulated how data would look like if some test takers possessed item preknowledge: Responses to a small number of items were set to correct for 1–10% of test takers. Item difficulty, item discrimination, item fit, and local dependence were computed using an IRT 2PL model. Then changes in these item properties from the non-compromised to the compromised dataset were scrutinized for their sensitivity to item preknowledge. A decline in the discrimination parameter compared with previous test versions and an increase in local item dependence turned out to be the most sensitive indicators of item preknowledge. A multiplicative combination of shifts in item discrimination, item difficulty, and local item dependence detected item preknowledge with a sensitivity of 1.0 and a specificity of .95 if 11 of 80 items were preknown to 10% of the test takers. Cheating groups smaller than 5% of the test takers were not detected reliably. In the discussion, we outline an effective search for items affected by cheating, which would enable faculty staff without IRT knowledge to detect compromised items and exclude them from scoring.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5131967
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51319672016-12-21 Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating Zimmermann, Stefan Klusmann, Dietrich Hampe, Wolfgang PLoS One Research Article Cheating is a common phenomenon in high stakes admission, licensing and university exams and threatens their validity. To detect if some exam questions had been affected by cheating, we simulated how data would look like if some test takers possessed item preknowledge: Responses to a small number of items were set to correct for 1–10% of test takers. Item difficulty, item discrimination, item fit, and local dependence were computed using an IRT 2PL model. Then changes in these item properties from the non-compromised to the compromised dataset were scrutinized for their sensitivity to item preknowledge. A decline in the discrimination parameter compared with previous test versions and an increase in local item dependence turned out to be the most sensitive indicators of item preknowledge. A multiplicative combination of shifts in item discrimination, item difficulty, and local item dependence detected item preknowledge with a sensitivity of 1.0 and a specificity of .95 if 11 of 80 items were preknown to 10% of the test takers. Cheating groups smaller than 5% of the test takers were not detected reliably. In the discussion, we outline an effective search for items affected by cheating, which would enable faculty staff without IRT knowledge to detect compromised items and exclude them from scoring. Public Library of Science 2016-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5131967/ /pubmed/27907190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167545 Text en © 2016 Zimmermann et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zimmermann, Stefan
Klusmann, Dietrich
Hampe, Wolfgang
Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating
title Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating
title_full Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating
title_fullStr Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating
title_full_unstemmed Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating
title_short Are Exam Questions Known in Advance? Using Local Dependence to Detect Cheating
title_sort are exam questions known in advance? using local dependence to detect cheating
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5131967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27907190
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167545
work_keys_str_mv AT zimmermannstefan areexamquestionsknowninadvanceusinglocaldependencetodetectcheating
AT klusmanndietrich areexamquestionsknowninadvanceusinglocaldependencetodetectcheating
AT hampewolfgang areexamquestionsknowninadvanceusinglocaldependencetodetectcheating