Paper on Why You Shouldn't Cheat Using This Site
USING SELECTED INDICES TO MONITOR CHEATING ON MULTIPLE-CHOICE EXAMS
Larry R. Nelson
Curtin University of Technology
Western Australia
Invited paper prepared for Volume 4 of the
Thai Journal of Educational Research and Measurement,
ISSN 1685-6740, to be published in 2006.
Methods for detecting cheating on multiple-choice tests are discussed, with particular focus on the Harpp-Hogan index. An investigation of the reliability of the H-H index was undertaken in two professional testing environments, with results suggesting the index can only be used with great caution. A comparison is made of the features available in selected software packages, and recommendations made for practitioners.
As the author of the Lertap item and test analysis package (Nelson, 2000[1]), I attempt to respond to modification requests from users as time allows. Early in 2005, the director of a large-scale testing program wrote to ask if Lertap might someday build in support for cheat checking, that is, for detecting the extent to which students in a given test venue may have engaged in answer copying or sharing. The director was familiar with the work of Wesolowsky (2000), and asked if I had seen it. I had not. Detecting cheating on multiple-choice exams was not something I was familiar with. I obtained a copy of Wesolowsky’s (2000) article, and began to adapt Lertap so that it would provide support for users wanting an index of cheating.
The Harpp-Hogan index
Some readers may already be aware of something which quickly became apparent to me: efforts to measure cheating have been going on for a very long time. Frary (1993) reviewed cheating indices dating back to the late 1920s, following their development up to the early 1990s. Frary himself has worked with colleagues to develop cheating detection indices (Frary, Tideman, & Watts, 1977; Frary & Tideman, 1997), and these are very much still in use today – the Integrity system[2] is one software
Larry R. Nelson
Curtin University of Technology
Western Australia
Invited paper prepared for Volume 4 of the
Thai Journal of Educational Research and Measurement,
ISSN 1685-6740, to be published in 2006.
Methods for detecting cheating on multiple-choice tests are discussed, with particular focus on the Harpp-Hogan index. An investigation of the reliability of the H-H index was undertaken in two professional testing environments, with results suggesting the index can only be used with great caution. A comparison is made of the features available in selected software packages, and recommendations made for practitioners.
As the author of the Lertap item and test analysis package (Nelson, 2000[1]), I attempt to respond to modification requests from users as time allows. Early in 2005, the director of a large-scale testing program wrote to ask if Lertap might someday build in support for cheat checking, that is, for detecting the extent to which students in a given test venue may have engaged in answer copying or sharing. The director was familiar with the work of Wesolowsky (2000), and asked if I had seen it. I had not. Detecting cheating on multiple-choice exams was not something I was familiar with. I obtained a copy of Wesolowsky’s (2000) article, and began to adapt Lertap so that it would provide support for users wanting an index of cheating.
The Harpp-Hogan index
Some readers may already be aware of something which quickly became apparent to me: efforts to measure cheating have been going on for a very long time. Frary (1993) reviewed cheating indices dating back to the late 1920s, following their development up to the early 1990s. Frary himself has worked with colleagues to develop cheating detection indices (Frary, Tideman, & Watts, 1977; Frary & Tideman, 1997), and these are very much still in use today – the Integrity system[2] is one software
References: Cizek, G.J. (2000, April). An overview of issues concerning cheating on large-scale tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Measurement in Education, Seattle, Washington. Frary, R.B. (1993). Statistical detection of multiple-choice answer copying: review and commentary. Applied Measurement in Education, 6(2), 153-165. Frary, R.B. & Tideman, T.N. (1997). Comparison of two indices of answer copying and development of a spliced index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 20-32. Frary, R.B., Tideman, T.N., & Watts, T.M. (1977). Indices of cheating on multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 235-256. Harpp, D.N. & Hogan, J.J. (1993). Crime in the classroom – detection and prevention of cheating on multiple-choice exams. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(4), 306-311. Harpp, D.N., Hogan, J.J., & Jennings, J.S. (1996). Crime in the classroom – Part II, an update. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(4), 349-351. Nelson, L.R. (2000). Item analysis for tests and surveys using Lertap 5. Perth, Western Australia: Faculty of Education, Language Studies, and Social Work, Curtin University of Technology. Tideman, N. & Kheirandish, R. (2003). Structurally consistent probabilities of selecting answers. Journal of Applied Statistics, 30(7), 803-811. Wesolowsky, G.O. (2000). Detecting excessive similarity in answers on multiple choice exams. Journal of Applied Statistics, 27(7), 909-921.