COLLUSION DETECTION SOFTWARE IN ONLINE MULTIPLE CHOICE EXAMINATIONS – A REVIEW
Main Article Content
Abstract
Computers have been used in higher education to assess students for decades. Software to allow assessments to be delivered to students (often referred to as computer-assisted assessment, or CAA), became widely commercially available in the 1990s, and many institutions began to experiment with these packages. The increasing availability of networked computers by the mid-1990s allowed assessments and other educational services to be delivered online with web browsers but the problem of this online test is collusion and cheating.
As on-line examinations become more popular, perhaps with the possibility of students being allowed to sit them remotely, the opportunity for cheating could be much higher than the traditional examination. An examination that is sat at a distance need some form of quality assurance to prevent or detect cheating and collusion between candidates. Multiple choice question (MCQ) examinations are of particular interest in assessment.
Hence this article focuses on overview of various software’s like LERTAP, The Harpp-Hogan index, Scrutiny!, Integrity and SCheck that can tackle the problem of collusion in online MCQ examination.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
References
Wesolowsky GO. Detecting excessive similarity in answers on multiple choice exams. J Appl Stat. 2000; 27(7): 909-921
Ercole A, Whittlestone KD, Melvin DG, Rashbass J. Collusion detection in multiple choice examinations. Medical education. 2002; 36(2): 166-172
Tibbetts SG. Differences between women and men regarding decisions to commit test cheating. Res High Educ. 1999; 40: 323-342
Tibbetts SG. Gender differences in students' rational decisions to cheat. Deviant Behav. 1997; 18: 393-414
Bird C. The detection of cheating in objective examinations. School and society. 1927; 25: 261-262
Bird C. An improved method of detection cheating in objective examinations. Journal of Educational Research. 1929; 25: 261-262
Muhammad NK, Zahid M, Naeem AR. Statistical Methods for Answer Copying – A Brief Overview. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences. 2011; 1: 49-61
Cody RP. Statistical analysis of examinations to detect cheating. J Med Educ. 1985; 60: 136-137
Angoff WH. The development of statistical indices for detecting cheaters. J Am Stat Assoc. 1974; 69: 44-49
Kvam PH. Using exam scores to estimate the prevalence of classroom cheating. Am Stat. 1996; 50: 238-242
Sotaridona LS, Vander LWJ, Meijer RR. Detecting answer copying using the kappa statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement. 2006; 30: 412-431
Belov DI, Armstrong RD. Automatic detection of answer copying via kullback-leibler divergence and k-index’. Applied Psychological Measurement. 2010; 34: 379-392
Larry R. Nelson (2006). Using selected indices to monitor cheating on multiple choice exams. http://www.lertap.curtin.edu.au/Documentation/JERM2006.doc. Date accessed 15 June 2013
Nelson LR. (2006) Using Lertap 5.6 to monitor cheating on multiple choice exams. http://www.lertap.curtin.edu.au/Documentation/JERM2006mod1.doc. Date accessed 13 June 2013
Cizek GJ. (2000) An overview of issues concerning cheating on large-scale tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Measurement in Education, Seattle, Washington
Frary RB, Tideman TN, Watts TM. Indices of cheating on multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Statistics. 1977; 2: 235-256
Tideman N, Kheirandish R. Structurally consistent probabilities of selecting answers. Journal of Applied Statistics. 2003; 30: 803-811
Wiley, Academic Integrity in the Age of Online Learning, http://read.uberflip.com/i/1272071-academic-integrity-in-the-age-of-online-learning/4? [accessed March 6, 2021]
Noorbehbahani F, Mohammadi A, Aminazadeh M. A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021. Educ Inf Technol. 2022; 27(6): 8413-8460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10927-7