Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
S C Rennie Dundee University Medical
School, Curriculum Office, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School,
Dundee DD1 9SY
Correspondence to: J R Crosby
j.r.crosby{at}dundee.ac.uk
Honesty and integrity are key characteristics expected of a
doctor, although academic misconduct among medical students is not
new.1 A survey of 428 American students in 1980 found that 58% reported cheating during medical school.2 We assessed
students' attitudes and behaviours on "cheating" and aimed to
raise awareness of academic misconduct.
The survey was initiated, designed, and conducted by students. An
anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 676 medical students in all
years at Dundee medical school (only half of the fourth years were
present at this time). The questionnaire was completed at the end of a
lecture and collected by the main researcher (SCR). The questionnaire
had 14 scenarios in which a fictitious student, "John," engaged in
dishonest behaviour. Students were asked to give their gender, year,
and views on informing faculty about misconduct and signing a written declaration.
For each scenario, students were asked whether they felt John was wrong
and whether they had done or would consider doing the same. Responses
were recorded "yes," "not sure," and "no" (students were
not given the opportunity to distinguish between "have done" and
"would consider doing"). Results were analysed with SPSS by using
percentage frequency responses.
A total of 461 students (68%) completed the questionnaire. Most
students' attitude was that most of the scenarios were wrong. The
exceptions were resubmitting work from a previous degree, chatting to a
student about an objective structured clinical examination that one
student has completed and the other is about to do, lending work to
other students to look at, and copying text directly and simply listing
the source in a reference list.
The proportion of students reporting that they had engaged in or would
consider engaging in the scenarios varied from 2% (95% confidence
interval 1-3%) for copying answers in a degree examination to 56%
(51-61%) for copying directly from published text and only listing it
as a reference. About a third of students reported that they had
engaged in or would consider engaging in the behaviour described in
four of the scenarios: chatting about an objective structured clinical
examination, writing "nervous system examination normal" when this
hadn't been performed, lending work to others to look at, and copying
text directly from published sources and simply listing the source in a
reference list.
Students consider dishonest behaviour to be wrong and would not
engage in it. However, that some students did report engaging in
dishonest behaviour is seen as important and worrying. Fewer students
consider it wrong to reference published text correctly compared with
copying in exams, submitting a senior student's work, or copying
another student's work. The responses for some of the scenarios
involving plagiarism may indicate students' lack of understanding
regarding referencing text appropriately and also a need for clear
guidelines. Large proportions of students were also unsure whether
exchanging information regarding an objective structured clinical
examination was wrong. This may reflect confusion concerning the
acceptability of swapping information and a lack of guidance given to
students about appropriate behaviour.
![]()
Methods and results
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References
![]()
Comment
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References
Explaining to students what is acceptable behaviour is important when
trying to reduce dishonesty.
3 4
Shifting the emphasis from assessment to the learning process may result in a decrease in
fraud and plagiarism.1 Academic misconduct is contrary to the ideals of academic and professional integrity and devalues the
system of course assessment. It needs to be taken seriously by medical
schools as it casts doubt on the validity of
qualifications.5
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Professor D A Levison, dean of Dundee medical school, for supporting this study and proofreading our manuscripts; Professor I K Crombie, professor of epidemiology and public health, for his advice on the questionnaire design and statistical analysis of the results; Elizabeth Brown for her input into the questionnaire design; and the students of Dundee medical school for participating.
Contributors: SCR had the original idea and was the principal researcher, designing and distributing the questionnaire and doing the statistical analysis. JRC commented on the questionnaire and results. SCR and JRC designed the study, did the data entry and validation, and wrote the paper. JRC and SCR are the guarantors.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.
The survey used in this study
appears on the BMJ's website
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Anderson RE, Obenshain SS. Cheating by students: findings, reflections, and remedies. Acad Med 1994; 69: 323-332[Medline]. |
| 2. | Sierles F, Hendrickx I, Circle S. Cheating in medical school. J Med Educ 1980; 55: 124-125[Medline]. |
| 3. | Baldwin Jr DC, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD, Schwarz MD. Cheating in medical school: a survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Acad Med 1996; 71: 267-273[Medline]. |
| 4. | Wagner Jr RF. Medical student academic misconduct: implications of recent case law and possible institutional responses. Acad Med 1993; 68: 887-889[Medline]. |
| 5. | Walker J. Students' plagiarism in universities: what are we doing about it? Higher Education Research and Development 1998; 17: 89-106. |
(Accepted 18 September 2000)
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+