The Detection of Cheating on E-Exams in Higher Education—The Performance of Several Old and Some New Indicators

Abstract

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.

The relationship between just world belief and wellbeing, cheating behaviors, and academic work behaviors during COVID 19 among university students

“…In principle, such behavior is inconsistent with the assumptions of BJW; in particular, the motive function obligates individuals to behave in a moral and socially acceptable manner. Any type of academic cheating violates the rules and norms of the university and affects the validity of examinations in higher education 47 . Academic cheating occurred more frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic 48 .…”

Generating Models for Item Preknowledge

“…This enabled comparisons to be made at the item level, since 48 of the 58 total items were administered as compromised in one group and secure in the other. Ranger, Schmidt, and Wolgast (RSW; 2020) considered an even more severe case of preknowledge where the answer key was also disclosed. Furthermore, they assumed that all EWPs had access to the same set of compromised items.…”

Two New Models for Item Preknowledge

“…The second and third data sets are the culmination of two experiments in which the EWPs and compromised items were known. The primary difference between the two is that Gorney and Wollack (GW, 2021) provided examinees with only the items prior the test, 4 while Ranger et al (RSW, 2020) provided examinees with the items and the correct answer key. Thus, the RSW data set represents a more severe type of preknowledge.…”