Ranger Jochen, Schmidt Nico, Wolgast Anett
Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Department of Psychology, University of Applied Sciences Hannover, Hanover, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 2;11:568825. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568825. eCollection 2020.
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.
在本文中,我们比较了高等教育电子考试中18种作弊指标的表现。该研究基于一项实地实验。实验场景是在一所大学进行的心理学入门课程的计算机辅助模拟考试。实验操作包括在一部分考生中诱导两种作弊形式(预先知晓答案、考试勾结)。作为作弊指标,我们既考虑了成熟的个体拟合指数(如U3统计量),也考虑了基于过程数据的几个新指标(如答题时间)。对这些指标根据其区分作弊考生子群体和其他考生的能力进行了评估。我们还使用了分类树来检测诱导的作弊行为。通过这一过程,我们旨在研究在日常教育环境(如使用心理测量质量较低的测试)中作弊行为的可检测性。基于答题修改次数和答题时间的指标能够指出作弊的考生。分类树的准确率达到了0.95(灵敏度:0.42/特异性:0.99)。在该研究中,修改次数是作弊的最重要预测因素。我们还探索了这些指标预测作弊具体形式的表现。确定作弊具体形式的准确率为0.93。