Predictors of academic integrity in undergraduate and graduate-entry masters occupational therapy students.
Ted Brown, Stephen Isbel, Alexandra Logan and 1 others
PMID 33815023WHAT IT FOUND
Student dishonesty was predicted by cheating tendencies, moral practice scores, and pressure to perform.
Fieldwork integrity was linked to gender and cheating tendencies. The study suggests focusing teaching on referencing rules and ethical reasoning, though self-report data limits certainty.
Key findings
01Cheating tendencies, moral practice scores, and pressure to perform were significant predictors of general academic integrity in occupational therapy students.
02In fieldwork settings, gender and tendency towards cheating predicted academic integrity for undergraduate students, while gender and pressure to perform predicted it for graduate-entry masters students.
03Students viewed exam cheating as completely dishonest but considered unacknowledged paraphrasing or missing references to be less serious breaches.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used convenience sampling, so the participants may not represent all occupational therapy students. Data was self-reported, which means students may not have honestly disclosed all instances of dishonest behaviour or their true grade point average. The sample was predominantly female, which may limit the generalisability of findings regarding gender effects. The study did not collect detailed demographic information such as cultural background or socioeconomic status, which could influence academic behaviour. Curriculum differences between the five participating universities may affect how results apply to other institutions.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study received ethics approval from the participating universities.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume these statistical predictors prove that a specific student will be dishonest. The study shows associations in a self-reported survey, not a way to definitively identify students who will cheat.