The Impact of Honour Codes and Perceptions of Cheating on Academic Cheating Behaviours, Especially for MBA Bound Undergraduates

O'Neill, Heather M.; Pfeiffer, Christian A.

doi:10.1080/09639284.2011.590012

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, moderator analysis showed no significant effect for the implementation of countermeasures against cheating. Despite the vast body of research that advocates the implementation of countermeasures to improve data quality in unproctored assessments (Bartram, 2009;Bryan, Adams, & Monin, 2013;Dwight & Donovan, 2003;O'Neill & Pfeiffer, 2012), we found no empirical evidence for their effectiveness.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

A Meta-Analysis of Test Scores in Proctored and Unproctored Ability Assessments

Steger¹,

Schroeders²,

Gnambs³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unproctored, web-based assessments are frequently compromised by a lack of control over the participants’ test taking behavior. It is likely that participants cheat if personal consequences are high. This meta-analysis summarizes findings on context effects in unproctored and proctored ability assessments and examines mean score differences and correlations between both assessment contexts. As potential moderators, we consider (a) the perceived consequences of the assessment, (b) countermeasures against cheating, (c) the susceptibility to cheating of the measure itself, and (d) the use of different test media. For standardized mean differences, a three-level random-effects meta-analysis based on 108 effect sizes from 49 studies (total N = 100,434) identified a pooled effect of Δ = 0.20, 95% CI [0.10, 0.31], indicating higher scores in unproctored assessments. Moderator analyses revealed significantly smaller effects for measures that are difficult to research on the Internet. Regarding rank order stability, a small subsample of studies (n = 5) providing 15 effect sizes (total N = 1,280) indicated considerable rank order changes (ρ = .58, 95% CI [.38, .78]). These results demonstrate that unproctored ability assessments are markedly biased by cheating. Unproctored assessments may be most suitable for tasks that are difficult to search on the Internet.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

A Meta-Analysis of Test Scores in Proctored and Unproctored Ability Assessments

Steger¹,

Schroeders²,

Gnambs³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To work as a countermeasure designed to lower the test-takers' motivation to cheat, it is important to inform test-takers about the follow-up tests in advance. These procedures are often used in personnel selection (Lievens & Burke, 2011;Nye et al, 2008). In academic settings, institutions often implement honor codes not only to raise students' awareness of cheating, but also to call attention to the consequences linked to unethical behavior (McCabe & Treviño, 2002;O'Neill & Pfeiffer, 2012).…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies found low cheating rates varying from below 2.5% (Lievens & Burke, 2011;Nye, Do, Drasgow, & Fine, 2008) up to 7.0% (Tendeiro, Meijer, Schakel, & Maij-de Meij, 2013). Conversely, in an online survey, every fourth participants reported cheating on knowledge task without being offered performance-dependent incentives (Jensen & Thomsen, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

A Meta-Analysis of Test Scores in Proctored and Unproctored Ability Assessments

Steger

Schroeders

Gnambs

2020

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Unproctored, web-based assessments are frequently compromised by a lack of control over the participants’ test-taking behavior. It is likely that participants cheat if personal consequences are high. This meta-analysis summarizes findings on context effects in unproctored and proctored ability assessments and examines mean score differences and correlations between both assessment contexts. As potential moderators, we consider (a) the perceived consequences of the assessment, (b) countermeasures against cheating, (c) the susceptibility to cheating of the measure itself, and (d) the use of different test media. For standardized mean differences, a three-level random-effects meta-analysis based on 109 effect sizes from 49 studies (total N = 100,434) identified a pooled effect of Δ = 0.20, 95% CI [0.10, 0.31], indicating higher scores in unproctored assessments. Moderator analyses revealed significantly smaller effects for measures that are difficult to research on the Internet. These results demonstrate that unproctored ability assessments are biased by cheating. Unproctored assessments may be most suitable for tasks that are difficult to search on the Internet.

show abstract

“…• Past cheating behavior (Nonis and Swift, 1998;Whitley, 1998;Quintos, 2017) • An understanding of what constitutes cheating/academic integrity training (Christensen-Hughes and McCabe, 2006;O'Neill and Pfeiffer, 2012;Curtis et al, 2013) • The use of honor codes (McCabe, 2016) • Poor study conditions (Whitley, 1998) • Academic level/year of study (Baetz et al, 2011;Ledesma, 2011;Ahmadi, 2014) • Stress/lack of time (Park et al, 2013;Smith et al, 2013) • Gender (men more likely to cheat) (Genereux and McLeod, 1995;Newstead et al, 1996;Nonis and Swift, 1998;Athanasou and Olasehinde, 2002;Selwyn, 2008;Baetz et al, 2011;Eret and Ok, 2014) • Grades (poorly performing students more likely to cheat) (Genereux and McLeod, 1995;Newstead et al, 1996;Park et al, 2013) • Dissatisfaction with/poor learning environment (Whitley, 1998;Balbuena and Lamela, 2015;Bretag et al, 2018) • A "normalization" of cheating including the perception that others are doing it (Genereux and McLeod, 1995;Whitley, 1998;Stephens et al, 2007;Megehee and Spake, 2008;Quintos, 2017) • Studying in a second language/language tutoring (Ledesma, 2011;Bretag et al, 2018). • Lenient institutional approaches to cheating/likelihood of being caught (Christensen-Hughes and McCabe, 2006;Megehee and Spake, 2008;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Common Is Commercial Contract Cheating in Higher Education and Is It Increasing? A Systematic Review

Newton

2018

Front. Educ.

215

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contract cheating, where students recruit a third party to undertake their assignments, is frequently reported to be increasing, presenting a threat to academic standards and quality. Many incidents involve payment of the third party, often a so-called "Essay Mill," giving contract cheating a commercial aspect. This study synthesized findings from prior research to try and determine how common commercial contract cheating is in Higher Education, and test whether it is increasing. It also sought to evaluate the quality of the research evidence which addresses those questions. Seventy-one samples were identified from 65 studies, going back to 1978. These included 54,514 participants. Contract cheating was self-reported by a historic average of 3.52% of students. The data indicate that contract cheating is increasing; in samples from 2014 to present the percentage of students admitting to paying someone else to undertake their work was 15.7%, potentially representing 31 million students around the world. A significant positive relationship was found between time and the percentage of students admitting to contract cheating. This increase may be due to an overall increase in self-reported cheating generally, rather than contract cheating specifically. Most samples were collected using designs which makes it likely that commercial contract cheating is under-reported, for example using convenience sampling, with a very low response rate and without guarantees of anonymity for participants. Recommendations are made for future studies on academic integrity and contract cheating specifically.

show abstract

The Impact of Honour Codes and Perceptions of Cheating on Academic Cheating Behaviours, Especially for MBA Bound Undergraduates

Cited by 38 publications

References 12 publications

A Meta-Analysis of Test Scores in Proctored and Unproctored Ability Assessments

A Meta-Analysis of Test Scores in Proctored and Unproctored Ability Assessments

A Meta-Analysis of Test Scores in Proctored and Unproctored Ability Assessments

How Common Is Commercial Contract Cheating in Higher Education and Is It Increasing? A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About