Date: 03 Jan 2013
Using Deterministic, Gated Item Response Theory Model to Detect Test Cheating due to Item Compromise
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The Deterministic, Gated Item Response Theory Model (DGM, Shu, Unpublished Dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2010) is proposed to identify cheaters who obtain significant score gain on tests due to item exposure/compromise by conditioning on the item status (exposed or unexposed items). A “gated” function is introduced to decompose the observed examinees’ performance into two distributions (the true ability distribution determined by examinees’ true ability and the cheating distribution determined by examinees’ cheating ability). Test cheaters who have score gain due to item exposure are identified through the comparison of the two distributions. Hierarchical Markov Chain Monte Carlo is used as the model’s estimation framework. Finally, the model is applied in a real data set to illustrate how the model can be used to identify examinees having pre-knowledge on the exposed items.
Requests for reprints and correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Zhan Shu, Educational Testing Service, 660 Rosedale Road, Princeton, NJ 08541, USA. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Angoff, W.H. (1974). The development of statistical indices for detecting cheaters. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 44–49. CrossRef
Bellezza, F., & Bellezza, S. (1995). Detection of copying on multiple-choice tests: an update. Teaching of Psychology, 22(3), 180–182. CrossRef
Cizek, G.J. (1999). Cheating on tests: how to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Drasgow, F., Levine, M.V., & Williams, E.A. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 38(1), 67–86. CrossRef
Drasgow, F., & Levine, M.V. (1986). Optimal detection of certain forms of inappropriate test scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 59–67. CrossRef
Drasgow, F., Luecht, R.M., & Bennett, R. (2006). Technology and testing. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 471–515). Washington: American Council on Education/Praeger Publishers.
Dwyer, D.J., & Hecht, J.B. (1996). Using statistics to catch cheaters: methodological and legal issues for students personnel administrators. NASPA Journal, 33(2), 125–135.
Frary, R., Tideman, N., & Watts, T. (1977). Indices of cheating on multiple choice tests. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2(4), 235–256. CrossRef
Hanson, B., Harris, D., & Brennan, R. (1987). A comparison of several methods for examining allegations of copying (ACT Research Report No. 87-15). Iowa City: American College Testing.
Holand, P. (1996). Assessing unusual agreement between the incorrect answers of two examinees using the K-index: statistical theory and empirical support ETS (Technical Report No. 96-4). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Levine, M.V., & Rubin, D.B. (1979). Measuring the appropriateness of multiple-choice test scores. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 269–290. CrossRef
Lewis, C., & Thayer, D.T. (1998). The power of K-index to detect test copying (Research Report No. 08541). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Luecht, R.M. (1998). A framework for exploring and controlling risks associated with test item exposure over time. Paper presented at the national council on measurement in education annual meeting, San Diego.
Luecht, R.M. (2005). Some useful cost-benefit criteria for evaluating computer-based test delivery models and systems. Journal of Applied Testing Technology. http://www.testpublishers.org/assets/documents/Volum%207%20Some%20useful%20cost%20benefit.pdf.
Meijer, R.R. (Ed.) (1996). Person-fit research: theory and applications. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(1), 9–18, [Special issue].
Mcleod, L., & Lewis, C. (1999). Detecting item memorization in CAT environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(2), 147–159. CrossRef
Mcleod, L., Lewis, C., & Thissen, D. (2003). A Bayesian method for the detection of item pre-knowledge in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(2), 121–137. CrossRef
Nering, M.L. (1996). The effects of person misfit in computerized adaptive testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Nering, M.L. (1997). The distribution of indexes of person fit within the computerized adaptive testing environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 115–127. CrossRef
Patz, R.J., & Junker, B.W. (1999a). A straightforward approach to Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for item response models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 146–178.
Patz, R.J., & Junker, B.W. (1999b). A straightforward approach to Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for item response models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(2), 146–178.
Rost, J. (1990). Rasch models in latent classes: an integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(3), 271–282. CrossRef
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models of some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
Stocking, M.L., Ward, W.C., & Potenza, M.T. (1998). Simulating the use of disclosed items in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 48–68. CrossRef
Segall, D. (2002). An item response model for characterizing test comprise. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(2), 163–179. CrossRef
Segall, D. (2004). A sharing item response theory model for computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(4), 439–460. CrossRef
Shu, Z. (2010). Using the deterministic, gated item response model detecting test cheating. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Sotaridona, L.S., & Meijer, R.R. (2003). Two new statistics to detect answer copying. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(1), 53–69. CrossRef
Sotaridona, L.S. (2003). Statistical methods for the detection of answer copying on achievement tests. AE Enschede: Twente University Press.
Tatsuoka, K. (1996). Use of generalized person-fit indexes, zetas for statistical pattern classification. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(1), 65–75. CrossRef
van der Linden, W.J., & Sotaridona, L.S. (2006). Detecting answer copying when the regular response process follows a known response model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(3), 283–304. CrossRef
van der Linden, W.J., & Sotaridona, L.S. (2004). A statistical test for detecting answer copying on multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41(4), 361–377. CrossRef
van der Linden, W.J., & Jeon, M. (2012). Modeling answer changes on test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37(1), 180–199. CrossRef
Watson, S.A., Iwamoto, C.K., Nungester, R.J., & Luecht, R.M. (1998). The use of response similarity statistics to study examinees who benefit from copying. Paper presented at the national council on measurement in education annual meeting, San Diego.
Wollack, J.A. (1997). A nominal response model approach for detecting answer copying. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(4), 307–320. CrossRef
Wollack, A., & Cohen, A. (1998). Detection of answer copying with unknown item and trait parameters. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 144–152.
Wollack, A., Cohen, A., & Serlin, R. (2001). Defining error rate and power for detecting answer copying. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(4), 385–404. CrossRef
Wollack, J.A. (2006). Simultaneous use of multiple answer copying indexes to improve detection rates. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 265–288. CrossRef
- Using Deterministic, Gated Item Response Theory Model to Detect Test Cheating due to Item Compromise
Volume 78, Issue 3 , pp 481-497
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- model estimation
- Industry Sectors