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