Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T01:26:46.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cheating on Proctored Tests: The Other Side of the Unproctored Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Fritz Drasgow ,
Christopher D. Nye ,
Jing Guo  and
Louis Tay
Fritz Drasgow*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Christopher D. Nye
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Jing Guo
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Louis Tay
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
*
E-mail: fdrasgow@uiuc.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 46 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, W. Jr., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., & Taylor, J. E. (2009). Unproctored Internet-based tests of cognitive ability and personality: Magnitude of cheating and response distortion. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 39–45.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01105.xGoogle Scholar
Burke, E. (2009). Preserving the integrity of online testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 35–38.Google Scholar
Chang, H., & Zhang, J. (2002). Hypergeometric family and item overlap rates in computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 67, 387–398.10.1007/BF02294991Google Scholar
Chapman, D. S., & Webster, J. (2003). The use of technologies in the recruiting, screening, and selection processes for job candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 113–120.10.1111/1468-2389.00234Google Scholar
Chuah, S. C. (2005). Conspiracy theory: An empirical study of cheating in a continuous testing environment. Ph dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Fire test shared from memory. (2008, June 19). The Boston Globe. Retrieved July 7, 2008, from www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/19/fire_test_shared_from_memory/ Google Scholar
Guo, J., Tay, L., & Drasgow, F. (2008). Conspiracies and test compromise: An evaluation of the resistance of test systems to small scale cheating. Manuscript in preparation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Johnston, S. J. (2006). Microsoft sues testing material vendor. Microsoft Certified Professional Magazine. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from www.mcpmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=1015 Google Scholar
Nye, C. D., Do, B-R., Drasgow, F., & Fine, S. (2008). Two-step testing in employee selection: Is score inflation a problem? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 112–120.10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00416.xGoogle Scholar
Stern, E. B. & Havlick, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys. Journal of Allied Health, 15, 139–142.Google Scholar