Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized response technique

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

  • Baird, J. (1980). Current trends in college cheating.Psychology in the Schools 17: 515–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronzaft, A. L., Stuart, I. R., and Blum, B. (1973). Test anxiety and cheating on college examinations.Psychological Reports 32: 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, W. G. (1933). Measurement in determining the personality and behavior of the college cribber.Education 53: 403–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devore, J. L. (1977). Note on the randomized response technique.Communications in Statistics — Theory and Methods 6(15): 1525–1529.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hartshorne, H., and May, M. A. (1928).Studies in Deceit. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, T. H. (1938). Factors influencing honesty.Journal of Sociological Psychology 9: 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lamb, C. W. and Stem, D. E. (1978). Empirical validation of randomized response technique.Journal of Marketing Research 15(4): 616–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parr, F. W. (1936). The problem of student honesty.Journal of Higher Education 7: 318–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Scheers, N. J., and Dayton, C. M. (1986). RRCOV: Computer program for covariate randomized response models.American Statistician 40: 229.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N. M. (1974).Response Effects in Surveys. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitro, F. T. (1971). The relationship of classroom dishonesty to perceived parental discipline.Journal of College Student Personnel 12: 427–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zdep, S. M., and Rhodes, I. N. (1977). Making the randomized response technique work.Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (4): 531–537.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Measurement, Statistics, and Evaluation, College of Education, University of Maryland, 20742, College Park, MD

    C. Mitchell Dayton

  2. FBI Academy, USA

    N. J. Scheers

Authors
  1. N. J. Scheers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Mitchell Dayton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scheers, N.J., Dayton, C.M. Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized response technique. Res High Educ 26, 61–69 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991933

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991933

Keywords

Search

Navigation