Cited by 201Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

FACTORS INFLUENCING ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ DECISIONS TO CHEAT BY TYPE OF ASSESSMENT

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11162-006-9010-y

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Bowers W. J. (1964). Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College. Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, New York
  2. Hanson, A. C. (1990). Academic dishonesty: The impact of student and institutional characteristics on cheating behavior [Abstract] (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51:89
  3. Moore, R. E. (1996). Impact of ABET on curriculum content and academic standards. Paper presented at the 1996 98th Annual Meeting and the Ceramic Manufacturing Council’s Workshop and Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana
  4. Ratner, J. (1996). Academic dishonesty and moral development: Theory revisited. [Abstract] (Doctoral dissertation: Columbia University Teachers College, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(07), 2902
  5. Spiller M. S., Crown D. F. (1995). Changes over time in academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business 68(4): 207–211
  6. Tang S., Zuo J. (1997). Profile of college examination cheaters. College Student Journal 31:340–346
  7. Tibbetts, S. G. (1997). College student perceptions of utility and intentions of test cheating (Academic dishonesty) [Abstract] (Doctoral dissertation: University of Maryland College Park, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(06A), 2400

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 201

Metadata

Authors
Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of North Carolina Wilmington (US)
  • Kettering University (US)
  • Lawrence Technological University (US)
Corresponding author
Finelli, Cynthia J.
Venue
Research in Higher Education
Published
2006-04-19
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
643-684
ISSN
  • 0361-0365 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-188X
OpenAlex
W2104524267
Cited by
201
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
FWCI
15.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalCommons - CalPoly (California State Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Keywords
academic dishonesty, engineering students, theory of planned behavior, exam cheating, assessment types, moral obligation, attitudes toward cheating, perceived social pressure, student stress

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review