Cited by 43Academic integrity and plagiarismEducational Technology and AssessmentOnline Learning and Analytics

Factors associated with online examination cheating

Henderson, Michael, Chung, Jennifer, Awdry, Rebecca, Mundy, Matthew, Bryant, Mike, Ashford, Cliff, Ryan, Kris·2023·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

Online examinations are a common experience in higher education. Their security is a key concern for education communities, and has resulted in a variety of cheating countermeasures. There is broad consensus in the literature that there is no one measure, including proctoring, which eradicates cheating behaviours. As a result, this study is exploratory, seeking to add to our understanding of the range of factors that may interact with frequency of cheating behaviour in online examinations. This large-scale study (N = 7839) is based in one Australian university which pivoted to online examinations during the 2021 Covid-19 lockdowns. Students who reported cheating (n = 216) revealed a wide range of factors that may have influenced their behaviours. A key observation is that cheating, although less frequent than reported elsewhere, occurred regardless of the security measure, assessment design, examination condition, and across the spectrum of student demographic variables. However, there were statistically significant differences in relation to frequency of cheating according to certain demographics, examination conditions, motivations, attitudes and perceptions. Although some forms of proctoring did demonstrate reduced frequencies in self-reported cheating, they are demonstrably incomplete solutions due to the complexity of other variables.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2022.2144802

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henderson, M., Chung, J., Awdry, R., Mundy, M., Bryant, M., Ashford, C., & Ryan, K.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Henderson, Michael
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2022-11-11
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
980-994
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W4309074924
Cited by
43
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
online examinations, academic integrity, proctoring, assessment security, student demographics, student motivation, student attitudes, COVID-19 lockdown, higher education assessment

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