How to Best Measure Academic Dishonesty in Students
Rattachement africain : de. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract: Addressing a pervasive problem in educational institutions, investigations into academic dishonesty by students have produced a vast body of empirical research, mostly based on self-report measures. However, the literature repeatedly points to inconsistencies in assessment methods and unclear measurement quality. We conducted a preregistered systematic review to compare and evaluate self-report assessments (including past cheating behavior and cheating intentions). Of 256 instruments in 231 studies, 70% were unique self-report measures and 38.7% of studies did not investigate or report psychometric quality criteria. As such, the academic dishonesty literature is no exception in questionable measurement practices, where reports often lack key measurement information, such as the full item list (missing in 32%) or the time frames for behavioral assessment (missing in 50.4%). Our findings illustrate the threat to interpretability and comparability due to a lack of psychometric understanding and inconsistent measurement approaches. Contrary to aiming at a unified measure, we propose a focus on best practices in measurement construction and reporting to address diverse contexts, populations, and research questions. To guide future research, we provide a selection of psychometrically validated scales, recommendations for analysis, operationalization, and reporting, and discuss methodological considerations to enhance the psychometric foundation of academic dishonesty research.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- How to Best Measure Academic Dishonesty in Students
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2024
- Éditeur
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
University of Augsburg Department of Behavioral Health Technology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Mannheim pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
School of Social Sciences pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Department of Behavioral Health Technology — University of Augsburg, University of Mannheim et School of Social Sciences.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.