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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ranger, Jochen, Schmidt, Nico, Wolgast, Anett
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