Psychometrika

, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 481–497 | Cite as

Using Deterministic, Gated Item Response Theory Model to Detect Test Cheating due to Item Compromise

Article

Abstract

The Deterministic, Gated Item Response Theory Model (DGM, Shu, Unpublished Dissertation.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.

Key words

cheating model estimation 

References

  1. Angoff, W.H. (1974). The development of statistical indices for detecting cheaters. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 44–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellezza, F., & Bellezza, S. (1995). Detection of copying on multiple-choice tests: an update. Teaching of Psychology, 22(3), 180–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cizek, G.J. (1999). Cheating on tests: how to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  4. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drasgow, F., & Levine, M.V. (1986). Optimal detection of certain forms of inappropriate test scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 59–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. Google Scholar
  7. 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. Google Scholar
  8. Frary, R., Tideman, N., & Watts, T. (1977). Indices of cheating on multiple choice tests. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2(4), 235–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. Google Scholar
  10. 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. Google Scholar
  11. Levine, M.V., & Rubin, D.B. (1979). Measuring the appropriateness of multiple-choice test scores. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 269–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, C., & Thayer, D.T. (1998). The power of K-index to detect test copying (Research Report No. 08541). Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Google Scholar
  13. 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. Google Scholar
  14. 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.
  15. Meijer, R.R. (Ed.) (1996). Person-fit research: theory and applications. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(1), 9–18, [Special issue]. Google Scholar
  16. Mcleod, L., & Lewis, C. (1999). Detecting item memorization in CAT environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(2), 147–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nering, M.L. (1996). The effects of person misfit in computerized adaptive testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Google Scholar
  19. Nering, M.L. (1997). The distribution of indexes of person fit within the computerized adaptive testing environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 115–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. Google Scholar
  21. 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. Google Scholar
  22. Rost, J. (1990). Rasch models in latent classes: an integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(3), 271–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models of some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research. Google Scholar
  24. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Segall, D. (2002). An item response model for characterizing test comprise. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(2), 163–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Segall, D. (2004). A sharing item response theory model for computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(4), 439–460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shu, Z. (2010). Using the deterministic, gated item response model detecting test cheating. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Google Scholar
  28. Sotaridona, L.S., & Meijer, R.R. (2003). Two new statistics to detect answer copying. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(1), 53–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sotaridona, L.S. (2003). Statistical methods for the detection of answer copying on achievement tests. AE Enschede: Twente University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Tatsuoka, K. (1996). Use of generalized person-fit indexes, zetas for statistical pattern classification. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(1), 65–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van der Linden, W.J., & Jeon, M. (2012). Modeling answer changes on test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37(1), 180–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. Google Scholar
  35. Wollack, J.A. (1997). A nominal response model approach for detecting answer copying. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(4), 307–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wollack, A., & Cohen, A. (1998). Detection of answer copying with unknown item and trait parameters. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 144–152. Google Scholar
  37. Wollack, A., Cohen, A., & Serlin, R. (2001). Defining error rate and power for detecting answer copying. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(4), 385–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wollack, J.A. (2006). Simultaneous use of multiple answer copying indexes to improve detection rates. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 265–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA
  2. 2.The University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations