Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factor structure of the attitudes toward cheating scale: An exploratory structural equation modeling analysis

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the attitude of students toward academic cheating has been an important variable in academic misconduct research, few researchers have examined the factor structure of cheating attitudes. The current research analyzed the factor structure of an important scale in this area—the Attitudes toward Cheating (ATC) scale. The findings of the current research revealed a three-factor solution of academic cheating: conservativeness in the cheating accusation, justification of cheating, and perceived immorality of cheating students. In addition, the three factors that were identified were only weakly correlated; meaning that cheating attitudes are multi-faceted. Therefore, the common practice of calculating an overall ATC scale score may not be adequate for fully capturing cheating attitudes. Finally, the current paper serves as an example of how to employ the powerful statistical technique of exploratory structural equation modeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, J., Fuller, D., & Luckett, M. (1998). Academic integrity: Behaviors, rates, and attitudes of business students toward cheating. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, D. C., Daugherty, S. R., & Rowley, B. D. (1996). Cheating in medical school: A survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Academic Medicine, 71(3), 267–273.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolin, A. U. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology, 138(2), 101–114.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cha, E.-S., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58, 386–395.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, E., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Harvard cheating scandal: Is academic dishonesty on the rise? Time. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/04/harvard-cheating-scandal-is-academic-dishonesty-on-the-rise/

  • Coleman, N., & Mahaffey, T. (2000). Business student ethics: Selected predictors of attitudes toward cheating. Teaching Business Ethics, 4(2), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K., & Yasukawa, H. (1999). College cheating in Japan and the United States. Research in Higher Education, 40, 343–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, J. (2004). To cheat or not to cheat: Effects of moral perspective and situational variables on students’ attitudes. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 163–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Westley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W. M., & Melvin, K. B. (1988). A scale for measuring attitude toward cheating. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 429–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardigan, P. C. (2004). First- and third-year pharmacy students’ attitudes toward cheating behaviors. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(5), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, T. S., Carpenter, D. D., Finelli, C. J., & Passow, H. J. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 311–324.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics and Behavior, 17, 255–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. C. S. (2016). Further considerations in using items with diverse content to measure acquiescence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 164–174.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. C. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2015a). How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality: The case of job satisfaction. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 512–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. C. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2015b). Implications of item keying and item valence for the investigation of construct dimensionality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 457–469.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, V. K. G., & See, S. K. B. (2001). Attitudes toward, and intentions to report, academic cheating among students in Singapore. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 261–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus, J. R., Polterovich, V. M., Danilov, D. L., & Savvateev, A. V. (2002). Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries. Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 125–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Lüdke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological-measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, A., Curtis, G. J., & Vardanega, L. (2008). Does culture influence understanding and perceived seriousness of plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(2), 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. L., Nicholls, A. R., Clough, P. J., & Crust, L. (2015). Assessing model fit: Caveats and recommendations for confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19, 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabi, S. M., Patton, L. R., Fjortoft, N., & Zgarrick, D. P. (2006). Characteristics, prevalence, attitudes, and perceptions of academic dishonesty among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(4) Article 73, 1–8.

  • Roig, M., & Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes toward cheating of self and others by college students and professors. The Psychological Record, 44(1), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, S. B., Guffey, D. M., & McMillian, J. J. (2001). Truth, consequences and cultures: A comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. and U.K. students. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, T. A., & Sass, D. A. (2011). Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: Implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 95–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seipel, T. (2015). Stanford University looks into allegations of cheating by students. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_27799963/stanford-university-reports-allegations-cheating-by-students

  • Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct. Career Development International, 14, 221–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinski, E. J., & Tryon, G. S. (2009). Study of a cognitive dissonance intervention to address high school students’ cheating attitudes and behaviors. Ethics & Behavior, 19, 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waugh, R. F., Godfrey, J. R., Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1995). Measuring students’ perceptions about cheating in six countries. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47, 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. E., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 41(9/10), 657–680.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by a Multi-Year Research Grant (grant number MYRG2015–00076-FED) from the University of Macau.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Macau, Taipa, Macau, China

    Chester Chun Seng Kam & Hoi Yan Cheung

  2. The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Ming Tak Hue

  3. Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Stephen D. Risavy

Authors
  1. Chester Chun Seng Kam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming Tak Hue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hoi Yan Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen D. Risavy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chester Chun Seng Kam.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures that were conducted involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 31 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kam, C.C.S., Hue, M.T., Cheung, H.Y. et al. Factor structure of the attitudes toward cheating scale: An exploratory structural equation modeling analysis. Curr Psychol 39, 1843–1852 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9887-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9887-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation