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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr3·q4·i3large
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q4 i3 The main effect of exam type on cheating extent was significant, ηp2 = 0.24. → Li Zhao 2024
q4 i3 The gender by exam type interaction was significant (ηp2 = 0.20); male students who cheated scored lower in the unproctored condition (M = 1.33 vs. 4.25), while female students did not differ. → Li Zhao 2024 (2)
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
q4 · i3 · causal · r3
ANOVA on cheating extent among cheaters in Study 3 (n = 25 cheaters across conditions; means M = 2.00 unproctored vs. M = 3.37 proctored). The article reports "ηp2 = 0.24" for the exam type main effect, with only weak Bayes evidence (BF10 = 1.57).
"The main effect of exam type was significant, F (1, 21) = 6.74, p = 0.017, ηp2 = 0.24, BF10 = 1.57."
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
q4 · i3 · causal · r3
Post hoc tests following the significant gender by exam type interaction (F(1, 21) = 5.36, p = 0.031, ηp2 = 0.20) in Study 3. For female students who cheated, extents were similar between conditions (M = 2.33 vs. 2.50, t(12) = –0.21, p = 0.835).
"For male students, the cheating extent was significantly lower in the unproctored exam condition than in the proctored exam condition, M = 1.33 vs. 4.25, SD = 0.58 vs. 1.39; t(9) = –3.43, p = 0.001, BF10 = 6.04."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 — reports the opposite
- With academic integrity reminders present, the exam-format effect on cheating rate disappears (Study 3 null) — related
- Study 4 replicated lower cheating rates in unproctored exams with reminders present, though with anecdotal Bayes evidence — related
- Unproctored exams produce significantly lower cheating rates than teacher-proctored exams in actual course exams without integrity reminders — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
study3-cheating-extent-gender-interaction |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — li-zhao-2024, li-zhao-2024-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.