↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the existence of social networks in cheating behaviors in medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating the existence of social networks in cheating behaviors in medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1299-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge Monteiro, Fernanda Silva-Pereira, Milton Severo

Abstract

Most studies on academic cheating rely on self-reported questionnaires and focus on the individual, overlooking cheating as a group activity. The aim of this study is to estimate the true prevalence of cheating/anomalies among medical students using a statistical index developed for this purpose, and to explore the existence of social networks between anomalies in students' results. Angoff's A index was applied to a sample of 30 written examinations, with a total of 1487 students and 7403 examinations taken, from the 2014/2015 academic year of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto to detect anomaly pairs. All analyses are within the same academic year and not across years. Through simulations, the sensitivity and specificity of the statistical method was determined, and the true prevalence of anomalies/cheating was estimated. Networks of anomaly pairs were created to search for patterns and to calculate their density. The percentage of students who cheated at least once increased with the year of medical school, being lowest in the first year (3.4%) and highest in the fifth (17.3%). The year of medical school was associated with anomalies (p < 0.05). The network's density was also lowest in the first year (1.12E-04) and highest in the fifth (8.20E-04). The true prevalence of anomalies was estimated to be 1.85% (95%CI: 1.07-3.20%). These findings suggest that some students are involved in social networks of cheating, which grow over time, resulting in an increase of anomalies/cheating in later academic years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 23 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 25 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,501,197
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#729
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,337
of 331,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#19
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.