Factors Affecting Intentions and Behavior of Plagiarism Among Students in Jambi University: Testing the Data Quality for Validity and Reliability

Firman Firman; Yusdi Anra; Robin Pratama; Friscilla Wulan Tersta

doi:10.24036/spektrumpls.v9i4.114281

Factors Affecting Intentions and Behavior of Plagiarism Among Students in Jambi University: Testing the Data Quality for Validity and Reliability

Firman Firman⁽¹⁾, Yusdi Anra⁽²⁾, Robin Pratama⁽³⁾, Friscilla Wulan Tersta⁽⁴⁾,
(1) Universitas Jambi

Indonesia
(2) Universitas Jambi

Indonesia
(3) Universitas Jambi

Indonesia
(4) Universitas Jambi

Indonesia

Corresponding Author

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/spektrumpls.v9i4.114281

Full Text:

Language : en

Abstract

This study aims to identify the factors that influence students' intention to plagiarize or plagiarize. To model plagiarism intention and behavior among college students, this proposed research refers to Theory Planned Behavior (TPB) by incorporating new variables of moral obligation and past behavior and using ICT literacy as part of perceived behavioral control. With a sample of 511 FKIP UNJA students, this study used a research methodology and model parameter estimation supported by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Testing the validity and reliability with the PLS Algorithm stages produces path coefficients (PLS-Algorithm). Based on the output coefficient path indicator which has a loading factor coefficient below 0.708 is dropped from the research model. After dropping indicators that do not match the criteria (<0.708), all items have reached a reliable point. Construct reliability was calculated using Cronbach Alpha and Composite reliability (CR) yielded greater than (>0.7) and AVE exceeded the acceptable value (>0.5) and thus the questionnaire items fulfilled and ensured the reliability of the instrument. The results of the construct reliability check based on discriminant validity can be done by looking at the AVE value to show the size of the indicator variance contained by the construct. Discriminant validity criteria refer to where the AVE value limit is 0.5. The results show that all AVE values for are (>0.5). In addition, the value of the square root of the AVE indicates a high discriminant validity value and can be accepted because the AVE square root value of all variable constructs is above the correlation value between the other construct values.

References

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Predicting and understanding consumer behavior: Attitude-behavior correspondence. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, 148-172.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-eﬃcacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

Akbulut, Y. (2014). Exploration of the antecedents of digital piracy through a structural equation model. Computers and Education, 78, 294–305.

Akbulut, Y., & Dönmez, O. (2018). Predictors of digital piracy among Turkish undergraduate students. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1324–1334.

Akbulut, Y., Şendaǧ, S., Birinci, G., Kiliçer, K., Şahin, M. C., & Odabaşi, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons of Internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS). Computers and Education, 51(1), 463–473.

Akbulut, Y., Uysal, Ö., Odabasi, H. F., & Kuzu, A. (2008). Inﬂuence of gender, program of study and PC experience on unethical computer using behaviors of Turkish undergraduate students. Computers and Education, 51(2), 485–492.

Anderson, M.S. and Steneck, N.H. (2011). The problem of plagiarism. Urol. Oncol. 29 (1): 90–94.

Babaii, E., & Nejadghanbar, H. (2016). Plagiarism among Iranian graduate students of language studies: perspectives and causes. Ethics and Behavior,1–19.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the prediction of goal-directed behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 437– 461.

Balbay, S., & Kilis, S. (2019). Perceived eﬀectiveness of Turnitin® in detecting plagiarism in presentation slides. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(1), 25–36.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy and health behaviour. Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine, 160-162.

Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 285–301.

Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1981). Attitudes “cause” behaviors: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 226–238.

Blunch, N. (2012). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS statistics and AMOS. Sage publications.

Bokosmaty, S., Ehrich, J., Eady, M. J., & Bell, K. (2019). Canadian university students' gendered attitudes toward plagiarism. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(2), 276–290.

Bolin, A. U. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 138(2), 101–114.

Breen, L., & Maassen, M. (2005). Reducing the incidence of plagiarism in an undergraduate course: the role of education. Issues in Educational Research, 15(1), 1–16.

Bretag, T. (2013). Challenges in addressing plagiarism in education. PLoS medicine, 10(12).

Briggs, R. (2009). Shameless! Reconceiving the problem of student plagiarism. Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities, 14(1), 65–75.

Bruton, S., & Childers, D. (2016). The ethics and politics of policing plagiarism: A qualitative study of faculty views on student plagiarism and Turnitin®. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 316–330.

Camara, S. K., Eng-Ziskin, S., Wimberley, L., Dabbour, K. S., & Lee, C. M. (2017). Predicting students' intention to plagiarize: An ethical theoretical framework. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(1), 43–58.

Cameron, C., Zhao, H., & McHugh, M. K. (2012). Publication ethics and the emerging scientific workforce: understanding ‘plagiarism’in a global context. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(1).

Chan, H. F. (2015). Understanding adolescents' unethical online behaviors: A structural equation approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation The University of Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38064443.pdf

Chen, Y., & Chou, C. (2017). Are we on the same page? College students' and faculty's perception of student plagiarism in Taiwan. Ethics & Behavior, 27(1), 53–73.

Chin, W. W., & Marcolin, B. (1995). The holistic approach to construct validation in IS research: Examples of the interplay between theory and measurement. In D. Compeau (Vol. Ed.), ASAC-23 Conference, IS Proceedings: Vol. 6(4), (pp. 33–43).

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.

Coakes, S. J., Steed, L. G., & Dzidic, P. (2006). SPSS version 13.0 for Windows: Analysis without Anguish. John Wiley & Sons Australia.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. routledge.

Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Cronan, T. P., & Al-Rafee, S. (2008). Factors that inﬂuence the intention to pirate software and media. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 527–545.

Cronan, T. P., Mullins, J. K., & Douglas, D. E. (2018). Further understanding factors that explain freshman business students' academic integrity intention and behavior: Plagiarism and sharing homework. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(1), 197–220.

Curtis, G. J., & Vardanega, L. (2016). Is plagiarism changing over time? A 10-year time-lag study with three points of measurement. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(6), 1167–1179.

Davies, L. J. P., & Howard, R. M. (2016). Plagiarism and the internet: Fears, facts, and pedagogies. In T. Bretag (Ed.). Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 591–606). Springer Nature: Springer Science Business Media Singapore.

Ehrich, J., Howard, S. J., Mu, C., & Bokosmaty, S. (2016). A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students' attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 231–246.

Engler, J. N., Landau, J. D., & Epstein, M. (2008). Keeping up with the Joneses: Students' perceptions of academically dishonest behavior. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 99–102.

Eret, E., & Ok, A. (2014). Internet plagiarism in higher education: Tendencies, triggering factors and reasons among teacher candidates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 1002–1016.

Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishing.

Gullifer, J. M., & Tyson, G. A. (2014). Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students' understanding of plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1202–1218.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(1), 3–32.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6): Pearson new international edition. Pearson Higher Ed.

Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. (2017). Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: A Comparative Evaluation of Composite-based Structural Equation Modeling Methods. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 45(5): 616-632.

Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 255–279.

Hosny, M., & Fatima, S. (2014). Attitude of students towards cheating and plagiarism: University case study. Journal of Applied Sciences, 14(8), 748–757.

Howard, R. M., & Davies, L. J. (2009). Plagiarism in the internet age. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 64–67.

Hoyle, R. H. (2011). Structural equation modeling for social and personality psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Husain, F. M., Al-Shaibani, G. K. S., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). Perceptions of and attitudes toward plagiarism and factors contributing to plagiarism: A review of studies. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 167–195.

Jereb, E., Urh, M., Jerebic, J., & Šprajc, P. (2018). Gender diﬀerences and the awareness of plagiarism in higher education. Social Psychology of Education, 21 (2), 409–426.

Katz, I. R. (2005). Beyond technical competence: Literacy in information and communication technology. Educational Technology, 45(6), 44–47.

Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling, 10(3), 333-351.

Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2014a). Developing and validating of a perceived ICT literacy scale for junior secondary school students: Pedagogical and educational contributions. Computers and Education, 78,1–9.

Liñán, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccolla Impresa/Small Business, 3(1), 11-35.

Ma, H. J., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 197–203

Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233–245.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual inﬂuences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterﬁeld, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual inﬂuences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modiﬁed honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357–378.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). International edition research in education: Evidence based.

McMillan, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. HarperCollins College Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York.

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.

Moss, S. A., White, B., & Lee, J. (2018). A systematic review into the psychological causes and correlates of plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 28(4), 261–283.

Namlu, A. G., & Odabasi, H. F. (2007). Unethical computer using behavior scale: A study of reliability and validity on Turkish university students. Computers and Education, 48(2), 205–215.

Norton, L. S., Tilley, A. J., Newstead, S. E., & Franklyn-Stokes, A. (2001). The pressures of assessment in undergraduate courses and their eﬀect on student behaviours. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 269–284.

Park, C. (2003). In other (People's) words: Plagiarism by university students-literature and lessons. Assessment Eval. High. Educ. 28(5), 471–488.

Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors inﬂuencing engineering students' decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 643–684.

Rajah-Kanagasabai, C. J., & Roberts, L. D. (2015). Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented Theory of Planned Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 535.

Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2012). A first course in structural equation modeling. Routledge.

Rodrigue, T., Serviss, P., & Howard, R. (2007). Plagiarism isn't the issue: Understanding students' source use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the. New York: National Council of Teachers of English.

Shirazi, B., Jafarey, A. M., & Moazam, F. (2010). Plagiarism and the medical fraternity: a study of knowledge and attitudes. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 60(4), 269–273.

Selwyn, N. (2008). “Not necessarily a bad thing …”: A study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 465–479

Stephens, J. M., Young, M. F., & Calabrese, T. (2007). Does moral judgment go oﬄine when students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates' beliefs and behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 233–254.

Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justiﬁcations to predict academic misconduct. Career Development International, 14(3), 221–241.

Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 35–45.

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the Internet and student writing: Improving academic integrity. New York: Routledge.

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 1, 31-65.

Towler, G., & Shepherd, R. (1991). Modiﬁcation of Fishbein and Ajzen's theory of reasoned action to predict chip consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 3(1), 37–45.

Underwood, J., & Szabo, A. (2003). Academic oﬀences and e-learning: Individual propensities in cheating. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 467–477.

Uzun, A. M., & Kilis, S. (2020). Investigating antecedents of plagiarism using extended theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 144, 103700.

Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235–274.

Yeo, S. (2007). First-year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism. High Education Research & Development, 26(2), 199–216.