Reasons for academic honesty and dishonesty with solutions: a study of pharmacy and medical students in New Zealand

Development and validation of a questionnaire about reasons for academic cheating by nursing students: A cross-sectional study

Cheating behavior is spreading among nursing students worldwide, necessitating the development of a validated questionnaire evaluating the reasons for such behavior. Nursing students (N = 482) from 2 universities in Saudi Arabia participated in this observational study. A survey containing items on socio-demographics and the 33-item Reasons for Cheating Scale (RCS) was completed by the respondents. The RCS had a 1-factor structure; the model fit indices were similar between the 1-, 2-, and 3-factor models, but the inter-factor correlations were too high for the 2- and 3-factor models. The measures of the quality of the factor score estimates were as follows: factor determinacy index, 0.987; expected a posteriori marginal reliability, 0.974; sensitivity ratio, 6.178; and expected percentage of true differences, 97.3%. The measures of the closeness to unidimensionality for the overall RCS were as follows: unidimensional congruence, 0.957; explained common variance, 0.875; and mean item residual absolute loading, 0.223. The intraclass correlation coefficient and McDonald's omega were 0.96 (CI: 0.93-0.98) and 0.962 (95% CI: 0.958-0.967), respectively. The severity score, infit, and outfit ranged from -0.847 to -2.015, 0.813 to 1.742, and 0.837 to 1.661, respectively. For all RCS items, the thresholds ranked τi1 < τi2 < τi3 < τi4 and showed invariance between the sexes. The RCS showed robust psychometric validity for both classical and item response theory parameters. It also had excellent test-retest reliability, internal consistency, item discrimination, factorial validity, measurement invariance, and ordered threshold level for the responses. Therefore, the RCS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing cheating behavior among nursing students.

Identifying the factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: An evidence-based review of the literature

The present study explores the major reasons for committing plagiarism, as reported in published literature. One hundred sixty-six peer-reviewed articles, which were retrieved from the Scopus database, were carefully examined to find out the research studies conducted to explore the most common reasons for academic cheating among students and researchers in different disciplines in higher education. An analysis of collected literature reveals that 19 studies were conducted to identify the perceived reasons of committing plagiarism. Four studies with similar constructs of perceived reasons of committing plagiarism, namely busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness, easy accessibility of electronic resources, poor knowledge in research writing and correct citation and lack of serious penalty, were conducted. The pooled mean and standard deviation of the four studies reveal that easy accessibility of electronic resources (Mean = 3.6, SD = 0.81), unawareness of instructions (Mean = 3.0, SD = 0.89), and busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness (Mean = 2.89, SD = 1.0) are important perceived reasons for committing plagiarism. The study findings could help create an effective intervention and a robust anti-plagiarism policy for academic institutions, administrators, and policymakers in detecting academic dishonesty while emphasizing the value of integrity in academic pursuit.

A straightforward graphical/statistical approach to help substantiate cheating on multiple-choice examinations

Academic dishonesty is prevalent in universities in the form of cheating on examinations, with the problem being much greater in classes that have a large number of students that require close seating arrangements for in-class exams. The scenario described below was experienced during an in-class exam that included the possibility of an Honor Code violation between two students that was observed independently by three different faculty proctors. Herein we detail an objective, statistical approach taken to maintain exam and academic integrity that is compelling and transparent to students and the University Honor Council. Using the established error-similarity analysis for multiple-choice exams, it was determined that the number of identical incorrect answers found on the exams of the two individuals in question was sufficiently greater than the number expected by chance (probability of P < 0.00001). The number of total identical incorrect answers found on the remaining exams (across 65 students, n = 89 comparisons) was plotted as function of the number of total incorrect answers found on these exams (incorrect answers ranged from 1 to 22) and clearly supported that there was an Honor Code violation between the two students in question. The techniques used herein established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a form of cheating had occurred between these students. However, caution must be taken as further investigation is requisite to establish whether the Honor Code violation was unidirectional (one student copying off the other) or bidirectional (collusion between the two students) in nature.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Academic dishonesty is prevalent in universities, especially on examinations with a large number of students in close seating arrangements. Cheating on a multiple-choice exam was suspected by observations from proctors of the examination. Application of error-similarity analysis associated with identical incorrect answers demonstrated that the probability of cheating was confirmed (P < 0.00001) between two examinees. Further comparisons with the remaining exams provided graphic evidence that a violation of the University's Honor Code had occurred.

Examining Students' Attitudes toward Academic Dishonesty in California Pharmacy Schools

Academic dishonesty is prevalent in the California pharmacy academic setting. Most student-respondents had heard about or witnessed their classmates cheating. This is highly concerning, as dishonest behavior may translate into the workplace once students graduate. Students, pharmacy school administrators and faculty should work together to discourage and prevent cheating.

Reasons for academic dishonesty during examinations among nursing students: Cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Understanding why nursing students engage in academic dishonesty is crucial, since cheating is becoming more common and can be followed by unethical professional practice.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a questionnaire for investigating nursing students' perceptions about the reasons for academic dishonesty during examinations, along with identifying the most important of these reasons.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey with the use of a convenience sample.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

660 undergraduate students of a nursing department in Greece.

METHODS

Questionnaire items were developed based on literature review and student interviews, evaluation of their content validity and intra-rater reliability. The participants completed the questionnaire electronically, which included items referring to behaviors of and reasons for academic dishonesty during examinations. Based on their responses, factor analysis was used to determine structural validity of the items that referred to the reasons for academic dishonesty.

RESULTS

High prevalence of academic dishonesty behaviors during examinations was confirmed. Reasons for academic dishonesty were grouped into three factors, which included 17 items in total. Highly-rated items mainly referred to non-realistic demands of and unfair student treatment by academic personnel, absence of severe consequences for cheating, the way examinations are performed, and the importance of achieving high grades. Female, junior and high degree grade students had significantly higher percentages of highly-rated responses in some items.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings offered knowledge about the reasons that students perceive to mostly favor cheating, whose identification can guide preventive strategies.

Describing the Attributional Nature of Academic Dishonesty

There is strong evidence that dishonesty occurs amongst medical students, and other allied health students and growing evidence that it occurs amongst medical academics. We believe that accidental dishonesty (or not knowing about the rules of regulations governing academic integrity) is a common attribution describing engagement in dishonesty; however, we believe that dishonest action is more often influenced and determined according to circumstance. In this paper, we aim to work through the literature that frames dishonest action with a focus on medical education, research and publication. We argue that the implications for medical education are far reaching and the root causes of many instances of dishonesty need to be more fully understood so that comprehensive, case-by-case ameliorative strategies can be developed.

Perceptions of plagiarism among undergraduate medical students in Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Objectives:

With the rise in the number of published papers in the biomedical field, plagiarism has become a major ethical concern as it has a direct effect on the quality of these papers. The objective of this research was to determine the perceptions of medical students towards plagiarism, the reasons students engage in plagiarism, the types of plagiarism, the consequences of plagiarism, and solutions to the problem of plagiarism.

Methods:

This is a cross-sectional study conducted in two medical colleges in Rawalpindi, Pakistan from June to September, 2018, using self-administered structured questionnaires.

Results:

Of the 1100 participants, up to 86.91% (n=956) were not aware of the existence of plagiarism, but the majority, i.e. 71.18% (n=783) have plagiarised the work of others before. Copying from colleagues or senior students is the most common type of plagiarism that medical students engage in owing to the ease with which fellow students’ work can be shared and copied. However, a lack of institutional awareness of the extent to which plagiarism exists, poor vigilance in detecting it, and the absence of clear policies to deal with plagiarism are mostly to blame.

Conclusion:

Plagiarism is common among medical students in developing countries, and it is necessary to create awareness about the consequences of engaging in this unethical practice both in the academic field and in the larger medical research society, in order to reduce its prevalence.

Cheating after the test: who does it and how often?

Self-reports suggest >50% of university students cheat at some point in their academic career (Christensen Hughes JM, McCabe DL. Can J High Educ 36: 49-63, 2006), although objective values of academic misconduct (AM) are difficult to obtain. In a physiology-based department, we had a concern that students were altering written tests and resubmitting them for higher grades; thereby compromising the integrity of our primary assessment style. Therefore, we directly quantified the prevalence of AM on written tests in 11 courses across the department. Three thousand six hundred and twenty midterms were scanned, and any midterm submitted for regrading was compared with its original for evidence of AM. Student characteristics, test details, and course information were recorded. On a department level, results show that this form of AM was rare: prevalent on 2.2% of all tests written. However, of the tests submitted for regrading, 17.4% contained AM (range: 0-26%). The majority of AM was conducted by high-achieving students, (60% of offenders earned >80%), and there was a trend toward women being more likely to commit AM (P = 0.056). While our results objectively show that this type of AM is low, we highlight that large competitive courses face significantly higher prevalence, and high-achieving students may have gone underreported in previous literature. Vigilance should be employed by all faculty who accept tests for regrading.

Nationwide study of publication misrepresentation in applicants to residency

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to assess the prevalence of research publication misrepresentation amongst Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) applicants to a single surgical subspecialty residency as a potential means of assessing professional behaviour.

METHODS

The authors reviewed CaRMS application forms to Canadian otolaryngology residency programmes over a 3-year period (2006-2008) for peer-reviewed publications reported as 'published', 'accepted' and 'in press'. Citations were verified by searching PubMed, Google Scholar and electronic journals. Misrepresentation was defined as any of: (i) falsely claimed authorship of an existing article; (ii) claimed authorship of a non-existing article, and (iii) improper ordering of authorship. Outcomes included descriptive statistics, as well as sub-analyses pertaining to age, gender, affiliated medical school and academic degree, and number of publications per applicant.

RESULTS

A total of 427 peer-reviewed publications were reported by 124 of 182 applicants (68% of applicants reported at least one publication). Of the 385 verifiable publications, 47 (12% of articles) were misrepresented by 29 applicants (23% of applicants claiming publication) self-reporting at least one publication. Age, gender, location of medical training, prior academic degree and number of citations per applicant did not relate to likelihood of misrepresentation (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents the nationwide prevalence of publication misrepresentation amongst applicants to Canadian otolaryngology residency programmes. The high rate of misrepresentation aligns with data reported in the literature and highlights the need to institute measures to dissuade graduates from this form of unprofessional behaviour.

Who would students ask for help in academic cheating? Cross-sectional study of medical students in Croatia

BACKGROUND

Academic cheating does not happen as an isolated action of an individual but is most often a collaborative practice. As there are few studies that looked at who are collaborators in cheating, we investigated medical students' readiness to engage others in academic dishonest behaviours.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey study in Zagreb, Croatia, 592 medical students from the first, 3rd and 6th (final) study year anonymously answered a survey of readiness to ask family, friends, colleagues or strangers for help in 4 different forms of academic cheating or for 2 personal material favours. Stepwise multiple linear regression models (MLR) were used to evaluate potential factors influencing propensity for engaging others in these two types of behaviour.

RESULTS

Many students would ask another person for help in academic cheating, from 88.8% to 26.9% depending on a cheating behaviour. Students would most often ask a family member or friend for help in academic cheating. The same "helpers" were identified for non-academic related behaviour - asking for personal material favours. More respondents, however, would include three or four persons for asking help in academic cheating than for routine material favours. Score on material favours survey was the strongest positive predictor of readiness for asking help in academic cheating (stepwise MLR model; beta = 0.308, P < 0.0001) followed by extrinsic motivation (compensation) and male gender, whereas intrinsic motivation, year of study and grade point average were weak negative predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that medical students are willing to engage more than one person in either close or distant relationships in academic cheating. In order to develop effective preventive measures to deter cheating at medical academic institutions, factors surrounding students' preference towards academic cheating rather than routine favours should be further investigated.