Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • In 1986 a questionnaire survey on cheating 23.7% of college students reported to have cheated at least once on major exams [1]

  • Based on a real data set from the 2013 Hamburg Natural Science Knowledge test (HAM-Nat), we generated an altered data set with simulated test takers with item preknowledge: A randomly selected group of 10% of test takers was assigned to possess item preknowledge for the sake of the simulation

  • Item preknowledge seems to be fairly detectable in simulations of student response data even at low frequencies by item parameters and patterns in the local dependence matrix

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In 1986 a questionnaire survey on cheating 23.7% of college students reported to have cheated at least once on major exams [1]. Cheaters tended to have lower grade point averages with a correlation between cheating and GPA of r = -.23. Low grade students seem to be least affected by threats and most inclined to justify cheating by neutralization (denial of responsibility, denial of the victim, denial of injury, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties). In an overview of more recent research on cheating McCabe et al reported that cheating (as admitted in a questionnaire) went up from 39% in 1963 to 64% in 1993 [2]. They found institutions with an honor code of academic integrity to be less troubled by cheating students. An institution should communicate that it really cares about fairness

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call