Measuring attitudes toward plagiarism: issues and psychometric solutions

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of failing to psychometrically test questionnaire instruments when measuring university students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. These issues are highlighted by a psychometric evaluation of a commonly used (but previously untested) plagiarism attitudinal scale. Design/methodology/approach – The importance of psychometric testing is shown through an analysis of a commonly used scale using modern techniques (e.g. Rasch analysis) on 131 undergraduate education students at an Australian university. Findings – Psychometric analysis revealed the scale to be unreliable in its present form. However, when reduced to an eight-item subscale it became marginally reliable. Research limitations/implications – The main implication of this paper is that questionnaire instruments cannot be assumed to function as they are intended without thorough psychometric testing. Practical implications – The paper offers valuable insight into the psychometric properties of a previously untested but commonly used plagiarism attitudinal scale. Originality/value – The paper offers a straightforward and easy to understand introduction to researchers in higher education who use questionnaires/surveys in their research but lack an understanding of why psychometric testing is so critical. While similar papers have been written in other fields which advocate psychometric approaches, such as Rasch analysis, this has not been the case in higher educational research (or mainstream educational research for that matter).

Canadian university students’ gendered attitudes toward plagiarism

“…Students' more permissive attitudes were also evident in the context of their more novice status when it comes to academic writing. For example, over one-third of students felt that penalties for plagiarist behaviours should be minor for academic newcomers, a finding that is largely consistent with previous findings (Christensen-Hughes, & McCabe, 2006;Ehrich et al, 2015). Such permissive attitudes are also consistent with a common notion among students that plagiarism is trivial or "no big deal" (Park, 2003, p. 476).…”

“…Specifically, subscale 2 contained questions pertaining to students' attitudes toward self-plagiarism, with the majority of students feeling that selfplagiarism does not constitute serious academic misconduct. This finding is consistent with Canadian (Christensen-Hughes & McCabe, 2006;Jurdi et al, 2012) and international research indicating undergraduate students' lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a plagiarist behaviour (Crisp, 2007;Devlin & Gray, 2007;Ehrich et al, 2016;Ehrich et al, 2015;Hu & Lei, 2012;Marshall & Garry 2006;Mu, 2010;Park, 2003;Song-Turner, 2008). It also highlights the potential influence of institutional factors in the development of students' beliefs and attitudes.…”

“…While there has been a recent trend in plagiarism research to incorporate online plagiarism detecting software such as Turnitin to facilitate research into plagiarism behaviour (Martin et al, 2009;Walker, 2010), the majority of research into plagiarism in higher education relies on self-report questionnaires as the main instruments of data collection (Ehrich, Howard, Tognolini, & Bokosmaty, 2015;Gururajan & Roberts, 2005;Walker, 2010). A potential problem in survey research is that some respondents can under report undesirable behaviour and over report desirable behaviour (Krumpal, 2011;Tourangeau & Yan, 2007).…”

“…While these questionnaire-based studies have begun to establish the prevalence of plagiarism and some of the potential precursors to students' engagement in plagiarist behaviours, the frequent lack of psychometric analyses of the survey instruments adopted remains a common oversight (Ehrich et al, 2015;Gururajan & Roberts, 2005). That is, while there is some preliminary research on university students' plagiarism attitudes, beliefs and practices, these findings are based on data generated from survey instruments for which validity and reliability data does not yet exist (Austin, Simpson, & Reynen, 2007;Christensen-Hughes & McCabe, 2006;Kloda & Nicholson, 2005;Montuno, Davidson, Iwasaki, & Mori, 2012).…”

Technical and Non-Technical Programme Students’ Attitudes and Reasons for Plagiarism

“…Part 2 was an adoption of Harris' (2001) 12 statements, which are on a five-point Likert-type scale. As per Ehrich et al (2015), the scales were scored as: Strongly Agree =4, Agree = 3, Neutral = 2, Disagree = 1, Strongly Disagree = 0; with scores ranging as low as 0 and as high as 48. It was aimed to be indicative that students with lesser serious attitudes towards plagiarism would score higher than those with greater serious attitudes towards plagiarism.…”