Skip to main content

Development of the Cross-Cultural Academic Integrity Questionnaire - Version 3 (CCAIQ-3)

Abstract

Establishing a reliable and valid measure of academic integrity that can be used in higher education institutions across the world is a challenging and ambitious task. However, solving this issue will likely have major ramifications for understanding dishonest action. It also enables the development of a standardised measure that can be used to assess the efficacy of interventions aimed at enhancing academic integrity that can be administered across regional boundaries and diverse cultural groups. This study has used a combination of confirmatory factor analysis and item distribution inspection procedures to further validate the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 2 (CCAIQ-2). Primary participants in this study were from Saudi Arabia (n = 338), and secondary reference participants were from New Zealand (n = 366). The findings indicate that a revised 10-item questionnaire, the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 3 (CCAIQ-3), has better credibility in terms of construct validity than its predecessor. Three CCAIQ-3 domains are proposed: copying, cheating, and complying. This research will inevitably create further academic and international debate; however this measure is likely to be useful in terms of creating a research protocol for evaluating and measuring cross-cultural issues and interventions aimed at promoting academic integrity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Abaraogu, U. O., Henning, M. A., Okpara, M. C., & Rajput, V. (2016). Disclosing academic dishonesty: Perspectives from Nigerian and New Zealand health professional students. Ethics and Behavior, 26(5), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1055494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, R., Bates, I., Davies, J. G., & Khan, I. (2002). A study of academic dishonesty among students at two pharmacy schools. The Pharmaceutical Journal, 269(7219), 529–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almutairi, K. M. (2015). Culture and language differences as a barrier to provision of quality care by the health workforce in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Medical Journal, 36(4), 425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. E., & Obenshain, S. S. (1994). Cheating by students: Findings, reflections, and remedies. Academic Medicine, 69(5), 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (1995). Amos™ 18 User’s guide. Chicago: Amos Development Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. J. S. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(24), 3186–3191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billings, S. W., & Dages, K. D. (2018). Cross-cultural validity of integrity assessments for lower-level and higher-level jobs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26(1), 66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Intelligence Agency. (2018). The world factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/profileguide.html.

  • Coverdale, J., & Henning, M. A. (2000). An analysis of cheating behaviours during training by medical students. Medical Teacher, 22(6), 582–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garzón Umerenkova, A., de la Fuente Arias, J., Martínez-Vicente, J. M., Zapata Sevillano, L., Pichardo, M. C., & García-Berbén, A. B. (2017). Validation of the Spanish short self-regulation questionnaire (SSSRQ) through Rasch analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granitz, N., & Loewy, D. (2007). Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, J. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Johnson, T. P. (2003). Questionnaire design in comparative research. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 19–34). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries, R., & Rutter, P. (2005). Cheating by pharmacy students: Perceptions, prevalence and comparisons. Pharmacy Education, 5(1), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, M. A. (2004). Reliability of the conflict resolution questionnaire: Considerations for using and developing internet-based questionnaires. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, M. A., Abaraogu, U. O., Ram, S., Malpas, P., & Hawken, S. J. (2016). Developing a cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire for medical and health sciences students. Medical Science Educator, 26, 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0302-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, M. A., Nejadghanbar, H., & Abaraogu, U. (2018). Developing a revised cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire (CCAIQ-2). Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(3), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, M. A., Ram, S., Malpas, P., Shulruf, B., Kelly, F., & Hawken, S. J. (2013). Academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning: Pharmacy and medical school students in New Zealand. Medical Teacher, 35(6), e1211–e1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede Insights. (2017). Compare countries. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/. Accessed 16 Oct 2018.

  • Howe, A., Crofts, D., & Billingham, K. (2000). Can nurses teach tomorrow s doctors? A nursing perspective on involvement in community-based medical education. Medical Teacher, 22(6), 576–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(3), 296–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. C. S., Hue, M. T., & Cheung, H. Y. (2018). Academic dishonesty among Hong Kong secondary school students: Application of theory of planned behaviour. Educational Psychology, 1–19.

  • Krägeloh, C. U., Wang, G. Y., Zhao, Q., Medvedev, O. N., Wu, Y., & Henning, M. A. (2018). Revised competitiveness index for use in China: Translation and Rasch analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, P. W., & Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C.-H. S., & Wen, L.-Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education—A nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54(1), 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S. J., & Garry, M. (2005). How well do students really understand plagiarism? In ASCILITE 2005 conference, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/52_Marshall.pdf.

  • McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2016). Cross-cultural measurement. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-5/publications/score/2016/04/culturally-fair-tests.aspx. Accessed 16 Oct 2018.

  • Morrison, T. G., Morrison, M. A., & McCutcheon, J. M. (2017). Best practice recommendations for using structural equation modelling in psychological research. Psychology, 8(09), 1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhney, K. A., Gutmann, M. E., Schneiderman, E., DeWald, J. P., McCann, A., & Campbell, P. R. (2008). The prevalence of academic dishonesty in Texas dental hygiene programs. Journal of Dental Education, 72(11), 1247–1260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obi, C. N., Leggett, C., & Harris, H. (2017). National culture, employee empowerment and advanced manufacturing technology utilisation: A study of Nigeria and New Zealand. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-23.

  • Rawwas, M. Y., Al-Khatib, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (2004). Academic dishonesty: A cross-cultural comparison of US and Chinese marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razek, N. (2014). Academic integrity: A Saudi student perspective. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 18(1), 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, S., & Bingham, T. (2017). Academic integrity for the multitudes: Reflections on a MOOC. The ANZTLA EJournal(15), 69-88.

  • Ryan, G., Bonanno, H., Krass, I., Scouller, K., & Smith, L. (2009). Undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy students’ perceptions of plagiarism and academic honesty. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(6).

  • Smith, T. W. (2003). Developing comparable questions in cross-national surveys. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 69–92). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trudgill, P., & Hannah, J. (2017). International English: A guide to varieties of English around the world. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus Henning.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Issues

None to be declared.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Arabic version of the CCAIQ-3

ينطبق على تماماً      لا ينطبق على أبداً   
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ نسخ عمل لطالب آخر بإذنه 1
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ تغيير كلمات لجزء من عمل آخر وتقديمها على أنها لي 2
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ نسخ من طالب آخر أثناء الإمتحان دون ان يدرك ذلك 3
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ إعادة تقديم عمل في مادة تم تقديمة مسبقاً لمادة أخرى 4
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ شراء عمل لتقديمه لمهمة دراسية 5
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ القيام بالإمتحان عن شخص آخر او جعل شخص آخر يقوم بالإمتحان بدلا عنك 6
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ استخدام البراشيم في الإمتحانات التحريرية 7
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ قص ولصق من الإنترنت مع الإستشهاد بها في المراجع 8
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ الاقتباس من عمل سابق مع الإستشهاد بالمرجع 9
٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ كتابة عملك الدراسي عند الإنتهاء من البحث 10

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henning, M., Alyami, M., Melyani, Z. et al. Development of the Cross-Cultural Academic Integrity Questionnaire - Version 3 (CCAIQ-3). J Acad Ethics 18, 35–53 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09350-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09350-4

Keywords

  • Academic integrity
  • higher education
  • dishonest and honest behaviours
  • questionnaire design