Few cross-national studies have been conducted on academic dishonesty. The aim of this study was to explore students’ disclosed levels of academic dishonesty between New Zealand and Nigeria. The measures obtained included incidence, acceptability, and justification of dishonest action. It was hypothesized that there would be differences between the two groups and that differences could be explained in terms of deontology, cultural relativism, utilitarianism, rational fair exchange, and/or response bias. There were 844 medical and health science students who participated in (...) the study and completed a questionnaire that explored incidence, acceptability, and justification of dishonest action. A binary logistic regression revealed that age and incidence were significant predictors of country allocation. Nigerian students reported more engagement in dishonest behaviors, and it is argued that these students have diverse cultural expectations, language variances, response strategies, norms, beliefs, and values. Educational interventions are essential to address concerns related to academic dishonesty such as promoting cross-cultural discourse, providing study skills programs, utilizing peer mentoring, creating formal exchange strategies, and endorsing honor codes. (shrink)

Understanding and measuring levels of academic integrity within higher education institutions across the world is an important area of study in the era of educational internationalization. Developing a cross-cultural measure will undoubtedly assist in creating standardization processes and add to the discourse on cross-cultural understanding on what constitutes honest and dishonest action in the higher education context. This study has used a combination of exploratory and confirmatory factor analytical procedures to validate a previously published questionnaire, namely the cross-cultural academic integrity (...) questionnaire. Inspection of response distributions was also undertaken. Primary participants in this study were from Iran, and secondary reference participants were from New Zealand and Nigeria. The findings indicate that a revised questionnaire better represents the data obtained from all three regions. Three CCAIQ-2 domains are proposed: cheating, collusion and complying. However, the response distributions indicated differences among the three groups, further suggesting that the theoretical constructs developed through factors analysis may not represent equivalence in terms of cross-cultural understanding. This research will inevitably create international debate on the measurement of integrity and how this measurement process can be used to establish internationally recognized and accountable educational regulations. (shrink)

One of the key learning objectives in any health professional course is to develop ethical and judicious practice. Therefore, it is important to address how medical and pharmacy students respond to, and deal with, ethical dilemmas in their clinical environments. In this paper, we examined how students communicated their resolution of ethical dilemmas and the alignment between these communications and the four principles developed by Beauchamp and Childress. Three hundred and fifty-seven pharmacy and medical students (overall response rate=63%) completed a (...) questionnaire containing four clinical case scenarios with an ethical dilemma. Data were analysed using multiple methods. The findings revealed that 73% of the qualitative responses could be exclusively coded to one of the ‘four principles’ determined by the Beauchamp and Childress' framework. Additionally, 14% of responses overlapped between the four principles (multiple codes) and 13% of responses could not be coded using the framework. The subsequent subgroup analysis revealed different response patterns depending on the case being reviewed. The findings showed that when students are faced with challenging ethical dilemmas their responses can be aligned with the Beauchamp and Childress framework, although more contentious dilemmas involving issues of law are less easily categorised. The differences between year and discipline groups show students are developing ethical frames of reference that may be linked with their teaching environments and their levels of understanding. Analysis of these response patterns provides insight into the way students will likely respond in ‘real’ settings and this information may help educators prepare students for these clinical ethical dilemmas. (shrink)

Establishing a reliable and valid measure of academic integrity that can be used in higher education institutions across the world is a challenging and ambitious task. However, solving this issue will likely have major ramifications for understanding dishonest action. It also enables the development of a standardised measure that can be used to assess the efficacy of interventions aimed at enhancing academic integrity that can be administered across regional boundaries and diverse cultural groups. This study has used a combination of (...) confirmatory factor analysis and item distribution inspection procedures to further validate the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 2. Primary participants in this study were from Saudi Arabia, and secondary reference participants were from New Zealand. The findings indicate that a revised 10-item questionnaire, the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 3, has better credibility in terms of construct validity than its predecessor. Three CCAIQ-3 domains are proposed: copying, cheating, and complying. This research will inevitably create further academic and international debate; however this measure is likely to be useful in terms of creating a research protocol for evaluating and measuring cross-cultural issues and interventions aimed at promoting academic integrity. (shrink)

Establishing a reliable and valid measure of academic integrity that can be used in higher education institutions across the world is a challenging and ambitious task. However, solving this issue will likely have major ramifications for understanding dishonest action. It also enables the development of a standardised measure that can be used to assess the efficacy of interventions aimed at enhancing academic integrity that can be administered across regional boundaries and diverse cultural groups. This study has used a combination of (...) confirmatory factor analysis and item distribution inspection procedures to further validate the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 2. Primary participants in this study were from Saudi Arabia, and secondary reference participants were from New Zealand. The findings indicate that a revised 10-item questionnaire, the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 3, has better credibility in terms of construct validity than its predecessor. Three CCAIQ-3 domains are proposed: copying, cheating, and complying. This research will inevitably create further academic and international debate; however this measure is likely to be useful in terms of creating a research protocol for evaluating and measuring cross-cultural issues and interventions aimed at promoting academic integrity. (shrink)

Establishing a reliable and valid measure of academic integrity that can be used in higher education institutions across the world is a challenging and ambitious task. However, solving this issue will likely have major ramifications for understanding dishonest action. It also enables the development of a standardised measure that can be used to assess the efficacy of interventions aimed at enhancing academic integrity that can be administered across regional boundaries and diverse cultural groups. This study has used a combination of (...) confirmatory factor analysis and item distribution inspection procedures to further validate the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 2. Primary participants in this study were from Saudi Arabia, and secondary reference participants were from New Zealand. The findings indicate that a revised 10-item questionnaire, the cross-cultural academic integrity questionnaire version 3, has better credibility in terms of construct validity than its predecessor. Three CCAIQ-3 domains are proposed: copying, cheating, and complying. This research will inevitably create further academic and international debate; however this measure is likely to be useful in terms of creating a research protocol for evaluating and measuring cross-cultural issues and interventions aimed at promoting academic integrity. (shrink)

This paper presents students’ views about honest and dishonest actions within the pharmacy and medical learning environments. Students also offered their views on solutions to ameliorating dishonest action. Three research questions were posed in this paper: (1) what reasons would students articulate in reference to engaging in dishonest behaviours? (2) What reasons would students articulate in reference to maintaining high levels of integrity? (3) What strategies would students suggest to decrease engagement in dishonest behaviours and/or promote honest behaviours? The design (...) of the study incorporated an initial descriptive analysis to interpret students’ responses to an 18-item questionnaire about justifications for dishonest action. This was followed by a qualitative analysis of students’ commentaries in reference to why students would engage in either honest or dishonest action. Finally a qualitative analysis was conducted on students’ views regarding solutions to dishonest action. The quantitative results showed that students were more likely to use time management and seriousness justifications for dishonest actions. The qualitative findings found that students’ actions (honest or dishonest) were guided by family and friends, the need to do well, issues of morality and institutional guidelines. Students suggested that dishonest action could be ameliorated by external agencies and polarised views between punitive and rewards-based mechanisms were offered. These results suggest that these students engaged in dishonest action for various reasons and solutions addressing dishonest action need to consider diverse mechanisms that likely extend beyond the educational institution. (shrink)