Cargando…
The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators
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 manipulatio...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7573546/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123049 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568825 |
_version_ | 1783597463969464320 |
---|---|
author | Ranger, Jochen Schmidt, Nico Wolgast, Anett |
author_facet | Ranger, Jochen Schmidt, Nico Wolgast, Anett |
author_sort | Ranger, Jochen |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7573546 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75735462020-10-28 The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators Ranger, Jochen Schmidt, Nico Wolgast, Anett Front Psychol Psychology 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7573546/ /pubmed/33123049 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568825 Text en Copyright © 2020 Ranger, Schmidt and Wolgast. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Ranger, Jochen Schmidt, Nico Wolgast, Anett The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators |
title | The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators |
title_full | The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators |
title_fullStr | The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators |
title_full_unstemmed | The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators |
title_short | The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators |
title_sort | detection of cheating on e-exams in higher education—the performance of several old and some new indicators |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7573546/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123049 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568825 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rangerjochen thedetectionofcheatingoneexamsinhighereducationtheperformanceofseveraloldandsomenewindicators AT schmidtnico thedetectionofcheatingoneexamsinhighereducationtheperformanceofseveraloldandsomenewindicators AT wolgastanett thedetectionofcheatingoneexamsinhighereducationtheperformanceofseveraloldandsomenewindicators AT rangerjochen detectionofcheatingoneexamsinhighereducationtheperformanceofseveraloldandsomenewindicators AT schmidtnico detectionofcheatingoneexamsinhighereducationtheperformanceofseveraloldandsomenewindicators AT wolgastanett detectionofcheatingoneexamsinhighereducationtheperformanceofseveraloldandsomenewindicators |