Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions
AbstractThis article evaluates three different questioning techniques for measuring the prevalence of plagiarism in student papers: the randomized response technique (RRT), the item count technique (ICT), and the crosswise model (CM). In three independent experimental surveys with Swiss and German university students as subjects (two web surveys and a survey using paperand- pencil questionnaires in a classroom setting), each of the three techniques is compared to direct questioning and evaluated based on the “more-is-better” assumption. According to our results the RRTand the ICT failed to reduce social desirability bias in self-reports of plagiarism. In contrast, the CM was more successful in eliciting a significantly higher rate of reported sensitive behavior than direct questioning. One reason for the success of the CM, we believe, is that it overcomes the “self-protective no” bias known from the RRT (and which may also be a potential problem in the ICT).We find rates of up to 22 percent of students who declared that they ever intentionally adopted a passage from someone else’s work without citing it. Severe plagiarism such as handing in someone else’s paper as one’s own, however, seems to be less frequent with rates of about 1 to 2 percent.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Department of Statistics and Economics in its journal Journal of Economics and Statistics.
Volume (Year): 231 (2011)
Issue (Month): 5-6 (November)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Licher Straße 74, 35394 Gießen
Phone: +49 (0)641 99 22 001
Fax: +49 (0)641 99 22 009
Web page: http://wiwi.uni-giessen.de/home/oekonometrie/Jahrbuecher/
More information through EDIRC
Plagiarism; sensitive questions; randomized response technique; item count technique; crosswise model;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
- C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
- C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- James Abernathy & Bernard Greenberg & Daniel Horvitz, 1970. "Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina," Demography, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 19-29, February.
- Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2011. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 169-193, February.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Winker).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.