Skip to main content

Table 2 Number of students, differences between unsupervised and supervised assessment items (percentage point), and unusual patterns (UP % of students) by unit within academic area

From: Can we detect contract cheating using existing assessment data? Applying crime prevention theory to an academic integrity issue

   Unsupervised% − supervised%      
Unit N Avg. SD UP1% UP2% UP3% UP4% UP5%
BJU_A 182 2.2 15.3 2.2% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%
BJU_B 119 2.1 14.7 1.7% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%
BJU_C 53 0.3 5.8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
CRM_A 146 2.5 13.9 4.1% 6.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%
CRM_B 77 8.0 20.6 13.0%* 19.5%** 5.2%* 0.0% 15.6%**
CRM_C 111 6.9 20.0 10.8%* 22.5%** 0.0% 3.6%* 13.5%**
CRM_D 88 4.4 14.5 4.6% 5.7% 1.1% 0.0% 2.3%
CRM_E 45 6.7 19.3 8.9% 17.8%* 4.4% 0.0% 11.1%
CRM_F 41 21.7 16.3 12.2% 41.5%** 0.0% 17.1%** 36.6%**
CRM_G 65 −0.5 15.4 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
CRM_H 68 12.1 16.7 17.7%** 19.1%** 5.9%* 1.5% 14.7%**
LAW_A 100 6.0 15.1 8.0% 10.0% 1.0% 3.0% 8.0%
LAW_B 66 3.7 11.6 3.0% 3.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%
LAW_C 24 6.9 19.7 16.7% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3%
LAW_D 143 7.9 13.5 4.9% 8.4% 1.4% 0.7% 3.5%
LAW_E 51 19.8 16.3 27.5%** 43.1%** 7.8%* 5.9% 23.5%**
LAW_F 50 5.9 17.9 8.0% 14.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0%
LAW_G 60 −6.7 17.9 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3%
LAW_H 59 7.5 12.9 5.1% 6.8% 1.7% 0.0% 6.8%
LAW_I 76 −0.6 14.7 4.0% 2.6% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%
LAW_J 69 9.5 17.2 13.0%* 20.3%** 0.0% 2.9% 10.1%
LAW_K 70 2.0 12.5 1.4% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
LAW_L 70 5.9 13.1 5.7% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%
LAW_M 125 8.8 10.1 6.4% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%
LAW_N 59 9.4 5.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LAW_O 81 4.5 12.4 2.5% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%
LAW_P 179 4.6 11.2 0.6% 3.9% 0.6% 0.0% 2.8%
LEG_A 126 4.7 15.4 4.8% 9.5% 0.8% 1.6% 8.7%
LEG_B 106 −3.4 13.1 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LLB_A 166 −1.3 16.7 1.8% 6.6% 0.0% 0.6% 4.8%
LLB_B 161 1.3 9.8 0.6% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%
LLB_C 172 5.4 13.6 1.2% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1%
LLB_D 163 4.3 11.0 1.8% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%
LLB_E 180 10.3 12.1 5.0% 11.1% 0.0% 1.1% 6.1%
LLB_F 40 −4.7 14.3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LLB_G 26 −15.5 7.7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LLB_H 27 −8.9 9.7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LLB_I 168 7.3 13.4 6.6% 10.7% 0.6% 0.0% 7.1%
LLB_J 36 11.6 14.6 16.7%* 22.2%* 2.8% 0.0% 13.9%
LLB_K 22 −7.5 12.7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LLM_A 37 1.1 14.2 2.7% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4%
LLM_B 51 1.8 12.6 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LLM_C 32 −3.8 12.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
  1. Z-proportion indicated significantly larger more frequent relative to the whole sample *p < .05, **p < .01 (Z > 1.64, one-tailed)
  2. NB. 1 LEG unit was excluded because it had less than 10 students
Back to article page

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

Contact us