Psychometric Properties of the Expanded Version of the Traditional Scale of Academic Dishonesty: Introducing a Scale in Iranian Students

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

Introduction: From the past until now, one of the concerns of most educational systems has been maintaining the integrity of ethics and ethical behaviors in educational environments. Despite the accomplishments in improving the moral behavior of students, the statistics show that not all educational systems are very effective in dealing with cheating, which is considered one of the most significant unethical behaviors.
    Academic dishonesty has many adverse personal and social consequences, such as negative effects on interpersonal relationships between cheaters, their professor, and their classmates. Academic dishonesty includes two dimensions: cheating on homework and cheating on exams. Homework cheating includes behaviors such as copying from books or internet resources and handing them in as one's homework, using books or internet resources to do homework without mentioning the source, and doing individual homework with the cooperation of others. Exam cheating includes behaviors such as using notes, illegal methods to obtain exam questions, different cheating tricks, and copying from other exam papers without permission from the teacher or professor.
    Not only conceptualizing and defining academic dishonesty but also operationalizing and measuring it in educational environments has been one of the challenges faced by researchers. These challenges are caused by the extensive and multifaceted nature of academic dishonesty.
    Extensive studies in the field of academic dishonesty show that a valid and reliable scale is needed to measure the different aspects of academic dishonesty and the tools that were used to measure academic dishonesty were designed before the coronavirus pandemic. With the spread of COVID-19 and the growth of e-learning, new methods of academic dishonesty were created, which were not taken into account in the mentioned tools.
    In the present study, two scales of academic dishonesty were integrated to obtain and validate a comprehensive tool for measuring the dimensions of academic dishonesty (homework cheating and exam cheating) based on traditional methods and new methods with the two factors.
Research Questions: The current research aims to investigate the psychometric properties of the traditional scale of academic dishonesty by McCabe & Trevino (1996) using the new methods of academic dishonesty developed by Parks-Leduc et al. (2021). In this regard, this study seeks to answer the question that "Does the expanded version of the traditional scale of academic dishonesty have the appropriate validity and reliability to be used in the Iranian student population or not?"
Methods: In terms of the objective, this study was of an applied type, from the category of psychometrics and descriptive method, which sought to investigate the psychometric characteristics of the academic dishonesty scale in the form of psychometric tools. The participants were 874 undergraduate students (265 men, 598 women, and 11 people who have not declared their gender, with an unknown gender) from Shiraz University in the academic year 2022-2023. The participants were selected by the convenience sampling method. In this way, first, the list of faculties of Shiraz University was prepared and then five faculties were randomly selected and the classrooms of the said faculties were used to complete the questionnaires. Due to the large number of items in the questionnaires and to increase the accuracy of their answers, the alternating rotation method was used in four ways. The average and standard deviation of the age of the research participants were 20.66 and 1.77 years, respectively.
    The scales were used included the Subjective Norm for Academic Dishonesty, Perceived Behavioral Control for Academic Dishonesty, Attitude of Academic Dishonesty, Intention of Academic Dishonesty, Justification of Academic Dishonesty, Moral Obligation to Academic Honesty, and Behaviors of Academic Dishonesty. The scales used in this study are utilized for the first time in Iran. The translation of the materials of these scales was done by two English language experts who were also familiar with the studies of educational psychology. Then the translated version was checked by the researchers to assure that the required revisions were carried out. This revision was aimed at making the material more understandable for the respondents and also more in line with the concept of academic dishonesty among Iranian students.
Results: The data were analyzed using SPSS and Smart - PLS software. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were used to determine validity. In this regard, the examination of factor loadings criteria, Fornell-Larker criteria and the ratio of hetero trait-monotrait showed that this tool has favorable convergent and discriminant validity. The measured model showed that all factor loadings are greater than 0.40, which indicates the convergent validity of the items of each factor based on the criteria of factor loadings. Also, the convergent validity of this tool was investigated based on the classical index of correlation with other constructs, and the results showed that the dimensions of academic dishonesty have a strong correlation with the total score of academic dishonesty and a moderate correlation with other available variables. Also, the total score of academic dishonesty has a moderate correlation with other variables, which confirms the convergent validity of the dimensions and the total score of academic dishonesty with other variables.
    To check the discriminant validity of the dimensions and the total score of academic dishonesty with other variables, the Fornell-Larker criterion was used. The results showed that in all cases, the values of the diameter, which is the square root of the extracted average variance of each variable, is greater than the correlation of that variable with other variables. For this reason, the discriminant validity of the tools is confirmed. Also, to further assess discriminant validity, the criterion of the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT) was used. The results showed that the discriminant validity of the tools is confirmed based on the ratio of HTMT. The point to consider is that the value of this index for the two dimensions of homework cheating and exam cheating is less than 0.90 and it shows the difference between these two dimensions.
    Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and rho- A index were used to determine reliability. The results of all three indicators showed that the value of all three indicators for the factors of this tool (cheating on homework and cheating on the exam) is higher than 0.7. As a result, the reliability of this tool is confirmed. In summary, the results showed that the integrated scale of academic dishonesty had very good validity and reliability in all the desired indicators and had the necessary efficiency to measure this behavior and can be used as a useful tool for measuring academic dishonesty in Iranian students.
Discussion and Conclusion: Overall findings of this study show that the scale measuring academic dishonesty behaviors demonstrates good validity and reliability, making it suitable for measuring this construct. This study validated the integrated scale of academic dishonesty for the first time in Iran, introducing comprehensive tools to measure and validate this construct, which paved the way for researchers and psychologists in this field. Also, considering the comprehensiveness of this scale to measure academic dishonesty, this scale can be used as a reference tool to check the psychometric properties of other scales related to this field. The results are discussed based on research and theoretical evidence.
    This combined tool helps to increase researchers' awareness of the extent of using each of the new methods of academic dishonesty. Examining these new methods helps to determine which type of cheating (assignments and exams) the new generation students tend to do the most, and what methods students use to deceive the professor and exam invigilators. This review is also a road map for teachers to present exams and academic assignments. Also, the results obtained from the study of new methods of academic dishonesty help educational institutions develop moral education programs that are appropriate for the dishonesty tendencies of the new generation of students.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Adesile, I., Nordin, M. S., Kazmi. Y., & Hussien, S. (2016). Validating Academic Integrity Survey (AIS): An application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(2), 149-167.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.  Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 438–459). London, United Kingdom: SAGE.
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314-324.
Alsuwaileh, B., & Alradaan, D. (2015). University students’ dishonest academic practices: The case of the College of Basic Education. Ain Shams Educational Journal, 39, 122-147.
Ampuni, S., Kautsari, N., Maharani, M., Kuswardani, S., & Buwono, S. B. S. (2020). Academic dishonesty in Indonesian college students: An investigation from a moral psychology perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 395-417.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Arhin, A. O., & Jones, K. A. (2009). A multidiscipline exploration of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty: Are nursing students different from other college students?  Nurse Education Today, 29(7), 710-714.‏
Arnold, I. J. (2016). Cheating at Online Formative Tests: Does it pay off? The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106.
Bashir, H., & Bala, R. (2018). Development and Validation of Academic Dishonesty Scale (ADS): Presenting a Multidimensional Scale. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 57-74.
Bretag, T. (2009). Cheating in school: What we know and what we can do. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(1), 30-31.‏
Chapman, K. J., & Lupton, R. A. (2004). Academic dishonesty in a global educational market: A comparison of Hong Kong and American University business students. International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 425-435.
Chapman, K. J., Davis, R., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2004). Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(3), 236- 249.
Chudzicka-Czupała, A., Lupina-Wegener, A., Borter, S., & Hapon, N. (2013). Students’ attitude toward cheating in Switzerland, Ukraine and Poland. The New Educational Review, 32(2), 66-76.
Davis, S. F., Drinan, P. F. & Gallant, T. B. (2009). Cheating in school: what we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M. (2011). Cheating behaviors in academic context: Does academic moral disengagement matter?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 356- 365.‏
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. Sage publications.
Freire, C. (2014). Academic Misconduct Among Portuguese Economics and Business Undergraduate Students- A Comparative Analysis with Other Major Students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(1), 43–63.
Gantz, C. E., & Gefen, D. (2020). Challenges Implementing Telemedicine at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). In Impacts of Information Technology on Patient Care and Empowerment (pp. 252-266). IGI Global.
Garavalia, L., Olson, E., Russell, E., & Christensen, L. (2007). How do students cheat?. In E. Andeman, & T. M (Eds.), psychology of academic cheating (pp. 33-58). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 16(1), 91-110.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.
Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 255-279.
Hendy, N. T., & Montargot, N. (2019). Understanding Academic dishonesty among business school students in France using the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 85- 93.‏
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Using partial least squares path modeling in advertising research: basic concepts and recent issues.In S. Okazaki (Ed.), Handbook of research on international advertising (pp. 252- 276). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Iyer, R., & Eastman, J. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students?. Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 101-110.‏
Jowkar, B., & Haq Naghdar, M. (2016). The relationship between moral identity and academic dishonesty: Examining the moderating role of gender. Journal of Education and Learning Studies, 8(2),162-143. [Persian]
Kashkouli, F. (2016). Explanation of academically harmful behaviors. Unpublished PhD thesis. Shiraz university. Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Department of Educational Psychology.
Kibler, W. L. (1993). Academic dishonesty: A student development dilemma. Naspa Journal, 30(4), 252-267.‏
Klocko, M. N. (2014). Academic dishonesty in schools of nursing: A literature review. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(3), 121- 125.
Lee, J. J., Ong, M., Parmar, B., & Amit, E. (2019). Lay theories of effortful honesty: Does the honesty-effort association justify making a dishonest decision? Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5),659–677.
Lupton, R. A., Chapman, K. J., & Weiss, J. E. (2000). International perspective: A cross-national exploration of business students’ attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward academic dishonesty. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 231–235.
Macale, L., Ghezzi, V., Rocco, G., Fida, R., Vellone, E., & Alvaro, R. (2017). Academic dishonesty among Italian nursing students: A longitudinal study. Nurse Education Today, 50, 57-61.‏
McCabe, D. L. (2005, August). Promoting academic integrity in business schools. In Professional Development Workshop, Academy of Management Conference, Hawaii (Vol. 6).
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522-538.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(1), 28- 33.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379-396.
Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2012). Research design explained. Cengage Learning.‏
Moeck, P. G. (2002). Academic dishonesty: Cheating among community college
students. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 26(6), 479-491.
Oran, N. T., Can, H. O., Şenol, S., & Hadimli, A. P. (2016). Academic dishonesty among health science school students. Nursing Ethics, 23(8), 919- 931.
Parks-Leduc, L., Guay, R. P., & Mulligan, L. M. (2021). The relationships between personal values, justifications, and academic cheating for business vs. non-business students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1-21.
Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S. & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47 (7), 643–684.
Payne, S. L., & Nantz, K. S. (1994). Social accounts and metaphors about cheating. College Teaching, 42(3), 90- 96.‏
Peled, Y., & Khaldi, S. (2013). Are discrimination, survival and tradition sufficient argument for academic dishonesty? Discrimination, Survival and Tradition as Argumentation for Academic Dishonesty. Educational Practice and Theory, 35(1), 41–61.
Petress, K. C. (2003). Academic dishonesty: A plague on our profession. Education, 123(3), 624-628.
Rettinger, D., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher Education, 50, 293-313.
Rimkus, L. K. (2012). A new measure of counterproductive student behavior. M. A. Thesis. The Faculty of the Department of Psychology East Carolina University.
Roberts, E. (2002). Strategies for promoting academic integrity in CS courses. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual.
Smedley, A., Crawford, T., & Cloete, L. (2015). An intervention aimed at reducing plagiarism in undergraduate nursing students. Nurse education in practice, 15(3), 168-173.‏
Starovoytova, D., Namango, S., & Katana, H. (2016). Theories and models relevant to cheating behavior. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(17), 108-139.
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct. Career Development International.
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 35-45.
Stone, T. H., Kisamore, J. L., Kluemper, D., & Jawahar, I. M. (2012). Whistle-blowing in the classroom?. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 12(5), 11-26.
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3), 1-9.
Swift, C. O., & Nonis, S. (1998). When no one is watching: cheating behaviors on projects and assignments. Marketing Education Review, 8, 27-36.
Taradi, S. K., Taradi, M., & Đogaš, Z. (2012). Croatian medical students see academic dishonesty as an acceptable behaviour: a cross-sectional multicampus study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(6), 376-379.‏
Thomas, D. (2017). Factors that explain academic dishonesty among university students in Thailand. Ethics & Behavior, 27(2), 140-154.‏
Tsui, A. P. Y., & Ngo, H. Y. (2016). Social predictors of business student cheating behaviour in Chinese societies. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14, 281–296.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Keith–Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yang, S. C., Huang, C. L., & Chen, A. S. (2013). An investigation of college students' perceptions of academic dishonesty, reasons for dishonesty, achievement goals, and willingness to report dishonest behavior. Ethics & Behavior, 23(6), 501–522.
Newton, P. M., & Essex, K. (2023). How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1-21.
Henry, J. (2022, July 17). Universities “turn blind eye to online exam cheats” as fraud rises. Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11021269/Universities-turning-blind-eye-online-exam-cheats-studies-rates-fraud-risen.html.
Knox, P. (2021). Students “taking it in turns to answer exam questions” during home tests. The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15413811/students-taking-turns-exam-questions-cheating-lockdown/.
Garg, M., & Goel, A. (2022). A systematic literature review on online assessment security: Current challenges and integrity strategies. Computers & Security, 113, 102544.
Dawson, R. J. (2020). Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World: Preventing E-Cheating and Supporting Academic Integrity in Higher Education (1st ed.). Routledge.
Davis, S. F., Drinan, P. F. & Gallant, T. B. (2009). Cheating in school: what we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S. & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47 (7), 643–684.
Swift, C. O., & Nonis, S. (1998). When no one is watching: cheating behaviors on projects and assignments. Marketing Education Review, 8, 27-36.
Alguacil, M., Herranz-Zarzoso, N., Pernías, J. C., & Sabater-Grande, G. (2023). Academic dishonesty and monitoring in online exams: a randomized field experiment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1-17.
Journal of Curriculum Research
Volume 14, Issue 2
September 2024
Pages 60-33

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 01 February 2024
  • Revise Date: 22 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 01 June 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics