Mini-meta-analysis: unproctored exams reduce both cheating rate and cheating extent across four studies, with no significant interactions with gender, course type, or reminders¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the hierarchical meta-regression on cheating rate, exam type was significant (b = –0.11, p < 0.001), accounting for 59.62% of the variance. → Li Zhao 2024 q3 i? In the meta-regression on cheating extent, exam type was significant (b = –1.19, p = 0.001), explaining 58.61% of the variance. → Li Zhao 2024 (2) q3 i? No interactions were significant for either outcome, rejecting hypotheses that reminders would have differential effects by exam format. → Li Zhao 2024 (3)

Evidence¶

Li Zhao 2024¶

Li Zhao, Junjie Peng, Shiqi Ke, Kang Lee. (2024). Effectiveness of Unproctored vs. Teacher-Proctored Exams in Reducing Students’ Cheating: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Field Experimental Study. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09965-z

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Hierarchical meta-regression combining all four studies' cheating rate data, entering gender, course type, exam type, and reminders stepwise. The exam type step was significant (Q(df = 1) = 15.24, p < 0.001) with "b = –0.11"; gender and course type steps were not significant.

"The exam type significantly affected cheating rate, b = –0.11, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = –0.17 to –0.05, p < 0.001, BF10 = 8.96. It accounted for 59.62% of the variance."

Li Zhao 2024 (2)¶

Li Zhao, Junjie Peng, Shiqi Ke, Kang Lee. (2024). Effectiveness of Unproctored vs. Teacher-Proctored Exams in Reducing Students’ Cheating: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Field Experimental Study. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09965-z

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Meta-regression on cheating extent among cheaters across the four studies. The exam type step was significant (Q(df = 1) = 11.61, p = 0.001); the article attributes the significant effect, absent in Studies 1, 2, and 4 separately, to the combined data having greater power.

"The exam type significantly affected cheating extent, b = –1.19, SE = 0.36, 95% CI = –1.89 to –0.49, p = 0.001, BF10 = 6.97, explaining 58.61% of the variance."

Li Zhao 2024 (3)¶

Li Zhao, Junjie Peng, Shiqi Ke, Kang Lee. (2024). Effectiveness of Unproctored vs. Teacher-Proctored Exams in Reducing Students’ Cheating: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Field Experimental Study. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09965-z

q3 · i? · causal · r3

In the meta-regressions, no interactions were significant for cheating rate or extent, leading the authors to conclude the unproctored exam advantage holds regardless of student gender, course type, and reminder presence.

"However, no interactions were significant ( ps > 0.05), thus rejecting Hypotheses 4a and 5a, which predicted that academic integrity reminders would have differential effects on cheating rate based on exam format."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pre-exam academic integrity reminders significantly reduce cheating rates relative to no reminders, equally for both exam formats — related
• Unproctored exams produce significantly lower cheating rates than teacher-proctored exams in actual course exams without integrity reminders — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Study 4 replicated lower cheating rates in unproctored exams with reminders present, though with anecdotal Bayes evidence — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In Study 3, among students who cheated, cheating extent was lower in unproctored exams, with a gender by exam type interaction driven by male students — reports the opposite
• With academic integrity reminders present, the exam-format effect on cheating rate disappears (Study 3 null) — reports the opposite