Recently, Belov & Wollack (2021) developed a method for detecting groups of colluding examinees as cliques in a graph. The objective of this article is to study how the performance of their method on real data with item preknowledge (IP) depends on the mechanism of edge formation governed by a response similarity index (RSI). This study resulted in the development of three new RSIs and demonstrated a remarkable advantage of combining responses and response times for detecting examinees with IP. Possible extensions of this study and recommendations for practitioners were formulated.
BelovD. I. (2017). On the optimality of the detection of examinees with aberrant answer changes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(5), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621617692077
BelovD. I.WollackJ. A. (2021). Graph theory approach to detect examinees involved in test collusion. Applied Psychological Measurement, 45(4), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216211013902
4.
BollobasB.ErdösP. (1976). Cliques in random graphs. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 80(3), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305004100053056
5.
CizekG. J.WollackJ. A. (2017). Exploring cheating on tests. In CizekG. J.WollackJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative methods for detecting cheating on tests (pp. 3–19). Routledge.
6.
DrasgowF.LevineM. V.ZickarM. J. (1996). Optimal identification of mismeasured individuals. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0901_5
ManK.HarringJ. R.ZopluogluC (October 2019). Application of a new method for multiple-group analysis of jointly modeling the item responses, response times, and visual fixation counts. Presented at the Conference on Test Security.
9.
RomeroM.RiascosÁ.JaraD. (2015). On the optimality of answer-copying indices: Theory and practice. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(5), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615595628
10.
StoneE. (April, 2016). Integrating digital assessment meta-data for psychometric and validity analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education.
11.
TotonS. L.MaynesD. D. (2019). Detecting examinees with pre-knowledge in experimental data using conditional scaling of response times. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00049
12.
van der LindenW. J. (2011). Modeling response times with latent variables: Principles and applications. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53(3), 334–358.
13.
WollackJ. A. (1997). A nominal response model approach for detecting answer copying. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970214002
14.
WollackJ. A.MaynesD. (2017). Detection of test collusion using cluster analysis. In CizekG. J.WollackJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative methods for detecting cheating on tests (pp. 124–150). Routledge.
15.
ZopluogluC.DavenportE. C. (2012). The empirical power and type I error rates of the GBT and ω indices in detecting answer copying on multiple-choice tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(6), 975–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412442941
