Research in Higher Education

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 61–69 | Cite as

Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized response technique

  • N. J. Scheers
  • C. Mitchell Dayton


Academic cheating behavior by university students was surveyed using the randomized response technique (RRT) and by conventional anonymous questionnaire methods. RRT is a survey method that permits sensitive information to be collected but that precludes associating the respondent with a particular response to a survey item. The estimated proportions of students who have engaged in cheating behaviors were, in general, larger using RRT. Moreover, this result is consistent with earlier findings for other sensitive behaviors. That underreporting is a serious problem with anonymous questionnaires is supported by the fact that the anonymous questionnaire estimates ranged from 39% to 83% below the RRT estimates. Furthermore, using a covariate modification of RRT, there was a distinct inverse relation between students' estimated grade-point average and the tendency to engage in cheating behavior. While these results have direct implications for estimating cheating behavior in higher education, more broadly, they raise serious concerns about the use of anonymous questionnaires when survey topics are sensitive.


High Education Education Research Inverse Relation Survey Item Survey Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baird, J. (1980). Current trends in college cheating.Psychology in the Schools 17: 515–522.Google Scholar
  2. Bronzaft, A. L., Stuart, I. R., and Blum, B. (1973). Test anxiety and cheating on college examinations.Psychological Reports 32: 149–150.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, W. G. (1933). Measurement in determining the personality and behavior of the college cribber.Education 53: 403–408.Google Scholar
  4. Devore, J. L. (1977). Note on the randomized response technique.Communications in Statistics — Theory and Methods 6(15): 1525–1529.Google Scholar
  5. Fligner, M. A., Policello, G. E., and Singh, J. (1977). Comparison of two randomized response survey methods with consideration for level of respondent protection.Communication in Statistics — Theory and Methods 6(15): 1511–1524.Google Scholar
  6. Goodstadt, M. S., and Gruson, V. (1975). The randomized response technique: A test of drug use.Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 814–818.Google Scholar
  7. Greenberg, B. G., Abul-Ela, A., Simmons, W. R., and Horvitz, D. G. (1969). The unrelated question randomized response model: Theoretical framework.Journal of the American Statistical Association 64: 520–539.Google Scholar
  8. Hartshorne, H., and May, M. A. (1928).Studies in Deceit. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Howells, T. H. (1938). Factors influencing honesty.Journal of Sociological Psychology 9: 97–102.Google Scholar
  10. Krotki, K., and Fox, B. (1974). The randomized response technique, the interview and the self-administered questionnaire: An empirical comparison of fertility reports.Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association 367–371.Google Scholar
  11. Lamb, C. W. and Stem, D. E. (1978). Empirical validation of randomized response technique.Journal of Marketing Research 15(4): 616–621.Google Scholar
  12. Parr, F. W. (1936). The problem of student honesty.Journal of Higher Education 7: 318–326.Google Scholar
  13. Scheers, N. J., and Dayton, C. M. (1982). The covariate unrelated question randomized response model.Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association, 407–410.Google Scholar
  14. Scheers, N. J., and Dayton, C. M. (1986). RRCOV: Computer program for covariate randomized response models.American Statistician 40: 229.Google Scholar
  15. Shimizu, I. M., and Bonham, G. S. (1978). Randomized response technique in a national survey.Journal of the American Statistical Association 73: 35–39.Google Scholar
  16. Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N. M. (1974).Response Effects in Surveys. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  17. Vitro, F. T. (1971). The relationship of classroom dishonesty to perceived parental discipline.Journal of College Student Personnel 12: 427–429.Google Scholar
  18. Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias.Journal of the American Statistical Association 60: 63–69.Google Scholar
  19. Zdep, S. M., and Rhodes, I. N. (1977). Making the randomized response technique work.Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (4): 531–537.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. J. Scheers
    • 2
  • C. Mitchell Dayton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Measurement, Statistics, and Evaluation, College of EducationUniversity of MarylandCollege Park
  2. 2.FBI AcademyUSA

Personalised recommendations