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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |