Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wollack, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Serlin, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Defining Error Rates and Power for Detecting Answer Copying

James A. Wollack

jwollack{at}facstaff.wisc.edu

Allan S. Cohen

ascohen{at}facstaff.wisc.edu

Ronald C. Serlin

University of Wisconsinrcserlin{at}facstaff.wisc.edu.

A family wise approach is described for evaluating the significance of copying indices designed to hold the Type I error rate constant for each examinee. The empirical Type I error rate and power of two indices, {omega} (Wollack, 1997) and g2 (Frary, Tideman, & Watts, 1977), are examined under a variety of copying situations. Results indicated that the traditional pairwise approach falsely detected examinees almost three times more often than the nominal {alpha} level. Familywise Type I error rates were substantially smaller, although they also tended to be somewhat inflated at small {alpha} levels as the percentage of items copied increased. Eliminating the indices detecting a source from the copier, in situations where the copier was also detected from the source, helped control the familywise Type I error rates for all {alpha} .001. Lack of Type I error control meant power could not be evaluated for g2 under any of the simulated familywise conditions. Familywise power for {omega} was reasonable when at least 30% of the items were copied.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 25, No. 4, 385-404 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/01466210122032118
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. A. Wollack
Computer Software Review: Cheating Detection at Your Fingertips: A Review of INTEGRITY
Applied Psychological Measurement, May 1, 2007; 31(3): 233 - 239.
[PDF]