Psychometric Properties of Academic Dishonesty Scale and its Relationship with Time Perspective in High School Students

Kamyar Azemi, Manijeh Shehni Yailagh, Morteza Omidian



Background and Aim: Academic dishonesty has become a worrying problem as students' deliberate attempts to distort, falsify or fabricate their academic assignments. This study aimed to evaluate the Psychometric of academic dishonesty scales for high school students.

Materials and Methods: In this descriptive-correlational study, 606 boy and girl students of high schools of Ahvaz city were selected using multistage cluster sampling in 2018-19 academic year. Witherspoon et al. (2010) and Zimbardo and Boyd Time Perspective Scale (1999) were used to collect data. Confirmatory factor analysis, correlation coefficient and convergent validity were used to assess the validity of the scale and internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and split method used to assess the reliability of the scale. Data analysis was performed using AMOS 21 and SPSS 22 software.

Findings: Two-dimensional structure of the academic dishonesty scale, including traditional and advanced cheating behaviors fitted well with the data. The validity and reliability of the scale were confirmed. There was a significant positive correlation between traditional cheating behavior with past negative, past positive, present hedonistic and present fatalistic (p<0.05) and also, contemporary cheating behavior with past negative, present hedonistic and present fatalistic (p<0.01). Moreover, there was a significant difference between mean scores of the girls and boys (p=0.001).

Conclusion: The findings indicate that the academic dishonesty scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring academic dishonesty behaviors in high school students. Use of this scale in psychological, educational and counseling study on high school students is recommended.


Please cite this article as: Azemi K, Shehni Yailagh M, Omidian M. Psychometric Properties of Academic Dishonesty Scale and its Relationship with Time Perspective in High School Students. Bioethics Journal 2019; 9(32): 19-32.


Academic Dishonesty; Time Perspective; Psychometry; High School

Full Text:




Thomas D. Factors that explain academic dishonesty among university students in Thailand. Ethics & Behavior 2017; 27(2): 140-154.

Bashir H, Bala R. Development and validation of academic dishonesty scale (ADS): Presenting a multidimensional scale. International Journal of Instruction 2018; 11(2): 57-74.

Stephens JM. Bridging the divide: The role of motivation and self-regulation in explaining the judgment-action gap related to academic dishonesty. Frontiers in Psychology 2018; 9(246): 1-15.

Abusafia AH, Roslan NS, Mohd Yusoff D, Mat Nor MZ. Snapshot of academic dishonesty among Malaysian nursing students: A single university experience. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences 2018; 13(4): 370-376.

Peled Y, Eshet Y, Barczyk C, Grinautski K. Predictors of academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Computers & Education 2018; 131: 49-59.

Kam CCS, Hue MT, Cheung HY. Academic dishonesty among Hong Kong secondary school students: Application of theory of planned behaviour. Educational Psychology 2018; 38(7): 1-19.

Moradi S, Nikpay I, Farahbakhsh S. Mastery goal structure and academic dishonesty: The mediatory role of learning goal orientation. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2018; 11(3): 73-80. [Persian]

Baranian S, Hajiyakhchali A, Atashafrouz A. A model to explain the relationship of the big five personality factors and academic dishonesty with mediating role of academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic self-esteem among students. Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning 2017; 5(1): 23-34. [Persian]

Etemaad J, Jokar B. Academic dishonesty and epistemological beliefs: Verifying the mediating role of gender. Studies in Learning & Instruction 2018; 10(1): 111-130. [Persian]

Haghnegahdar M, Jokar B. Relationship moral identity with academic dishonesty: Examination the moderating role of gender. Studies in Learning & Instruction 2016; 8(2): 143-162. [Persian]

Birks M, Smithson J, Antney J, Zhao L, Burkot C. Exploring the paradox: A cross-sectional study of academic dishonesty among Australian nursing students. Nurse Education Today 2018; 65: 96-101.

Winrow AR, Reitmaier-Koehler A, Winrow BP. Social desirability bias in relation to academic cheating behaviors of nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 2015; 5(8): 1-14.

Jiang H, Emmerton L, McKauge L. Academic integrity and plagiarism: A review of the influences and risk situations for health students. Higher Education Research and Development 2013; 32(3): 369-380.

Aluede O, Omoregie EO, Osa-Edoh GI. Academic dishonesty as a contemporary problem in higher education: How academic advisers can help? Reading Improvement 2006; 43(2): 97-106.

Ballantine JA, McCourt Larres P, Mulgrew M. Determinants of academic cheating behavior: The future for accountancy in Ireland. Accounting Forum 2014; 38(1): 55-66.

Brimble M. Why students cheat: An exploration of the motivators of student academic dishonesty in higher education. Edited by Bretag T. Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer Science-Business Media Singapore; 2016. p.365-382.

Sutherland-Smith W. Authorship, ownership and plagiarism in the digital ege. Edited by Bretag T. Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer Science-Business Media Singapore; 2016. p.575-589.

Friedman A, Blau I, Eshet-Alkalai Y. Cheating and feeling honest: Committing and punishing analog versus digital academic dishonesty behaviors in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Life Long Learning 2016; 12: 193-205.

Rostaminezhad MA, Shokatirad AR. Predicting students’ membership in virtual networks and their academic performance based on parenting styles and adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology 2016; 2(38): 193-208. [Persian]

Kauffman Y, Young MF. Digital plagiarism: An experimental study of the effect of instructional goals and copy and paste affordance. Computers & Education 2015; 83: 44-56.

McCabe DL, Trevino LK. Academic dishonesty honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education 1993; 64(5): 522-538.

Iyer R, Eastman JK. The impact of unethical reasoning on academic dishonesty: Exploring the moderating effect of social desirability. Marketing Education Review 2008; 18(2): 1-13.

Ledesma RG. Academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in a Korean university. Research in World Economy 2011; 2(2): 1-11.

Eminoglu E, Nartgun Z. A scale development study to measure academic dishonesty tendency of university students. Journal of Human Sciences 2009; 6(1): 215-240.

Hensley LC, Kirkpatrick KM, Burgoon JM. Relation of gender, course enrollment and grades to distinct forms of academic dishonesty. Teaching in Higher Education 2013; 18(8): 895-907.

Orosz G, Dombi E, Toth-Kiraly I, Bothe B, Jagodics B, Zimbardo PHG. Academic cheating and time perspective: Cheaters live in the present instead of the future. Learning and Individual Differences 2016; 52: 39-45.

Orosz G, Dombi E, Toth-Kiraly I, Roland-Levy C. The less is more: The 17 item Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Current Psychology 2015; 36(1): 39-47.

Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Putting time in perspective: A valid reliable individual differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999; 77(6): 1271-1288.

Worrell FC, Mello ZR. The reliability and validity of Zimbardo time perspective inventory Scores in academically talented adolescents. Educational & Psychological Measurement 2007; 67(3): 487-504.

Aylmer B. Continuity and change in time perspective: A longitudinal field study of youth workers. Doctoral Dissertation. Dublin: Dublin City University; 2013.

Witherspoon M, Maldonado N, Lacey CH. Academic dishonesty of undergraduates: Methods of cheating. Denver: Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education Research Association; 2010.

Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Edited by Kenny DA, Little TD. 3rd ed. New York, London: The Guilford Press: A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc; 2011.

Chan SM, Kwok WW, Fung TW. Psychometric properties of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory in Hong Kong adolescents. Time & Society 2016; 28(1): 33-49.

Lee GS, Yom YH. Structural equation modeling on life-world integration in people with severe burns. Asian Nursing Research 2013; 7(3): 112-119.



  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY-NC 4.0. Copyright © 2016 Bioethics Journal (Quarterly). All rights reserved.  All credits and honors to PKP for their OJS.

For Author | Online Submission | About Contact