• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

当场抓获:预测无监考知识评估中的作弊行为

Caught in the Act: Predicting Cheating in Unproctored Knowledge Assessment.

作者信息

Steger Diana, Schroeders Ulrich, Wilhelm Oliver

机构信息

Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.

University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.

出版信息

Assessment. 2021 Apr;28(3):1004-1017. doi: 10.1177/1073191120914970. Epub 2020 May 1.

DOI:10.1177/1073191120914970
PMID:32354221
Abstract

Cheating is a serious threat in unproctored ability assessment, irrespective of countermeasures taken, anticipated consequences (high vs. low stakes), and test modality (paper-pencil vs. computer-based). In the present study, we examined the power of (a) self-report-based indicators (i.e., Honesty-Humility and Overclaiming scales), (b) test data (i.e., performance with extremely difficult items), and (c) para data (i.e., reaction times, switching between browser tabs) to predict participants' cheating behavior. To this end, 315 participants worked on a knowledge test in an unproctored online assessment and subsequently in a proctored lab assessment. We used multiple regression analysis and an extended latent change score model to assess the potential of the different indicators to predict cheating. In summary, test data and para data performed best, while traditional self-report-based indicators were not predictive. We discuss the findings with respect to unproctored testing in general and provide practical advice on cheating detection in online ability assessments.

摘要

在无人监考的能力评估中,作弊是一个严重的威胁,无论采取何种对策、预期后果(高风险与低风险)以及测试方式(纸笔测试与计算机测试)如何。在本研究中,我们考察了以下因素预测参与者作弊行为的能力:(a) 基于自我报告的指标(即诚实-谦逊量表和过度宣称量表)、(b) 测试数据(即对极难项目的作答情况)以及 (c) 辅助数据(即反应时间、在浏览器标签之间切换的情况)。为此,315名参与者在无人监考的在线评估中进行了一次知识测试,随后又在有监考的实验室评估中进行了测试。我们使用多元回归分析和扩展的潜在变化分数模型来评估不同指标预测作弊行为的潜力。总之,测试数据和辅助数据表现最佳,而传统的基于自我报告的指标则没有预测能力。我们从总体上讨论了关于无人监考测试的研究结果,并就在线能力评估中的作弊检测提供了实用建议。

相似文献

1
Caught in the Act: Predicting Cheating in Unproctored Knowledge Assessment.当场抓获:预测无监考知识评估中的作弊行为
Assessment. 2021 Apr;28(3):1004-1017. doi: 10.1177/1073191120914970. Epub 2020 May 1.
2
Cheating on Unproctored Internet Test Applications: An Analysis of a Verification Test in a Real Personnel Selection Context.非监考网络测试应用中的作弊行为:真实人员选拔背景下一项验证测试的分析
Span J Psychol. 2018 Dec 3;21:E62. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2018.50.
3
PageFocus: Using paradata to detect and prevent cheating on online achievement tests.页面聚焦:利用辅助数据检测和防止在线成绩测试中的作弊行为。
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Aug;49(4):1444-1459. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0800-7.
4
Lucky, Competent, or Just a Cheat? Interactive Effects of Honesty-Humility and Moral Cues on Cheating Behavior.幸运、有能力还是只是欺骗?诚实-谦逊与道德线索对欺骗行为的交互影响。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018 Feb;44(2):158-172. doi: 10.1177/0146167217733071. Epub 2017 Nov 8.
5
Detecting Cheating Methods on Unproctored Internet Tests.检测无监考网络考试中的作弊方法。
Psicothema. 2020 Nov;32(4):549-558. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2020.86.
6
A Method for Cheating Indication in Unproctored On-Line Exams.无监考在线考试中的作弊指示方法。
Sensors (Basel). 2022 Jan 15;22(2):654. doi: 10.3390/s22020654.
7
Effects of Trust and Threat Messaging on Academic Cheating: A Field Study.信任和威胁信息对学术作弊的影响:一项实地研究。
Psychol Sci. 2021 May;32(5):735-742. doi: 10.1177/0956797620977513. Epub 2021 Apr 15.
8
Cheating to benefit others? On the relation between Honesty-Humility and prosocial lies.为使他人受益而欺骗?论诚实谦逊与亲社会谎言之间的关系。
J Pers. 2024 Jun;92(3):870-882. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12835. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
9
Construct and Predictive Validity of an Assessment Game to Measure Honesty-Humility.构建与诚信-谦逊评估游戏的预测效度。
Assessment. 2022 Jun;29(4):630-650. doi: 10.1177/1073191120985612. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
10
The correlation of honesty-humility and learning goals with academic cheating.诚实谦逊、学习目标与学术作弊之间的相关性。
Soc Psychol Educ. 2023;26(1):211-226. doi: 10.1007/s11218-022-09742-2. Epub 2022 Dec 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Measuring Domain-Specific Knowledge: From Bach to Fibonacci.衡量特定领域知识:从巴赫到斐波那契数列。
J Intell. 2023 Feb 28;11(3):47. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11030047.
2
Stop Worrying about Multiple-Choice: Fact Knowledge Does Not Change with Response Format.别再担心多项选择题了:事实性知识不会因答题格式而改变。
J Intell. 2022 Nov 14;10(4):102. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence10040102.
3
Self-Enhancement and the Medial Prefrontal Cortex: The Convergence of Clinical and Experimental Findings.自我提升与内侧前额叶皮层:临床与实验结果的交汇
Brain Sci. 2022 Aug 19;12(8):1103. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12081103.
4
Detecting Careless Responding in Survey Data Using Stochastic Gradient Boosting.使用随机梯度提升法检测调查数据中的粗心应答情况。
Educ Psychol Meas. 2022 Feb;82(1):29-56. doi: 10.1177/00131644211004708. Epub 2021 Apr 19.
5
Promoting Academic Integrity and Student Learning in Online Biology Courses.在在线生物学课程中促进学术诚信与学生学习。
J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2021 Mar 31;22(1). doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2291. eCollection 2021.
6
A Reappraisal of the Threshold Hypothesis of Creativity and Intelligence.对创造力与智力阈值假说的重新评估
J Intell. 2020 Nov 11;8(4):38. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence8040038.