For over 70 years, research has tackled the issue of academic misconduct in the university setting. However, a review of the literature reveals that (a) consensus on the magnitude of such behavior has not been reached, and, (b) no one with expertise in quantitative methodology has attempted to classify the behaviors that describe cheaters until Ferrell and Daniel proposed the use of the Academic Misconduct Survey (AMS). Even they, following their 1995 study, made a call for the development of understandable (...) constructs in the measurement of cheating. Seventeen years later, the present study sought to produce such constructs. In a series of three phases of data collection, 4,100 participants completed a revised version of the AMS. A factor solution containing five factors proved to be the most interpretable. The five factors are as follows: creative padding, interactive cheating, false personal excuses, taking credit for others’ work, exam cheating. The present paper outlines the constructs proposed and discusses implications in this area for (1) scholars within the area of measurement and (2) educators with regard to student accountability and performance. (shrink)

We investigated the definition, prevalence, perceived prevalence and severity of, as well as justifications for and expected responses to, academic dishonesty at the graduate level in a sample of 246 graduate students, 49 faculty, and 20 administrators. Between 2.5% and 55.1% of students self-reported engaging in academically dishonest behaviors, depending on the nature of the behavior. Students and faculty rated 40 examples of academically dishonest behaviors similarly in terms of severity, but faculty tended to underestimate the prevalence of academic dishonesty. (...) Students and faculty also reported how they would idealistically and realistically expect themselves to respond to cheating situations. Students rated 21 behaviors in terms of their likeliness to increase or decrease academically dishonest behavior. Suggestions are given for developing a climate or culture of academic integrity to address academic dishonesty. (shrink)

This article reviews 1 decade of research on cheating in academic institutions. This research demonstrates that cheating is prevalent and that some forms of cheating have increased dramatically in the last 30 years. This research also suggests that although both individual and contextual factors influence cheating, contextual factors, such as students' perceptions of peers' behavior, are the most powerful influence. In addition, an institution's academic integrity programs and policies, such as honor codes, can have a significant influence on students' behavior. (...) Finally, we offer suggestions for managing cheating from students' and faculty members' perspectives. (shrink)