Cheating Motivation Scale: Evidence Of Validity And Reliability

Moura, Hysla Magalhães de; Gouveia, Rildésia Silva Veloso; Grangeiro, Alex Sandro de Moura; Figueiredo, Camilla Vieira de; Gouveia, Valdiney Veloso

doi:10.1590/1413-82712023270302

Brasil

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Article • Psico-USF 27 (3) • Jul-Sep 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712023270302 linkcopy

Cheating Motivation Scale: Evidence Of Validity And Reliability

Escala de Motivação para Trapacear: Evidências de Validade e Confiabilidade

Escala de Motivación para Engañar: Evidencias de Validez y Fiabilidad

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This study aimed to adapt the Motivation to Cheat Scale (MCS) to the Brazilian student context, gathering evidence of validity based on its internal structure. Two studies were carried out. In Study 1, the 20 items of the MCS were translated into Portuguese and evaluated semantically by ten students, who consider them sufficiently understandable. Subsequently, seeking to know the internal structure of the measure, there was the participation of 212 high school students (M = 16.10 years; SD = 1.02). An exploratory factor analysis indicated the existence of two factors (search for success and moral initiation), which were saturated 18 items. O Study 2 aimed to verify this factorial structure. Logo, the 18 items answered by 229 high school students (M = 16.20 years; SD = 1.23). A confirmatory factorial analysis confirmed bifactorial adjustment. MCS has evidence of validity based on internal structure, which can be used in research outside of Brazil.

Keywords: students; fraud; antisocial behavior; measure; psychometry

Items	Factors
Items	I	II
12. I cheated to get a high grade	0,64	-0,29
07. I cheated to make sure I got a passing grade in a course.	0,60	-0,29
16. I cheated by helping a friend get a better grade	0,59	-0,06
09. The test-writing surroundings make it easy for me to cheat (e.g., the seats are too close to each other).	0,54	0,14
05. Everyone else does it.	0,53	-0,02
13. Professors usually make the exams too difficult.	0,52	0,15
06. I’m not concerned about the punishments for cheating (suspension, expulsion).	0,52	-0,05
02. I know how to hide my cheating	0,51	-0,28
15. It was spontaneous cheating (i.e., did it without planning on it ahead of time).	0,50	-0,10
14. The punishments that universities use to warn students are just empty threats.	0,47	0,09
11. I don’t think my cheating will be detected.	0,47	-0,15
01. I cheated because of the competitive atmosphere at my school/university.	0,44	-0,07
10. I felt pressured to achieve by my family or other people.	0,42	0,11
17. I didn’t cheat because I pride myself in being a good and trustworthy person.	-0,19	0,70
20. I am not the kind of person who cheats at school/university.	-0,17	0,65
19. I didn’t cheat because I might get caught.	0,11	0,51
08. Being honest and moral is a high priority for me.	-0,04	0,48
18. You don’t have to cheat to be a winner.	0,07	0,44
Number of items	13	5
Eigenvalues	5,33	2,14
% Explained variance	23,6	7,3
Cronbach’s alpha	0,84	0,70
Mean score	2,60	3,55
Amplitude	4,00	3,60

Model	χ² (df)	GFI	AGFI	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (IC 90%)	Δχ² (gl)
Two-factorial	214,73 (134)	0,90	0,87	0,91	0,90	0,05 (0,04 - 0,06)	-
Three- factorial	301,02 (132)	0,83	0,80	0,83	0,80	0,07 (0,08 - 0,06)	86,29 (2)*
Single-factorial	313,73 (135)	0,84	0,80	0,82	0,79	0,07 (0,08 - 0,06)	99,00 (1)*

vertical_align_top file_download show_chart

more_horizclose
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Universidade de São Francisco, Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Psicologia R. Waldemar César da Silveira, 105, Vl. Cura D'Ars (SWIFT), Campinas - São Paulo, CEP 13045-510, Telefone: (19)3779-3771 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistapsico@usf.edu.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

[TFN1] Note: N (229); χ² = chi-square; df = Degrees of freedom; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root-Mean-Square Error Aproximation, IC90% = Confidence Interval 90%; Δχ² (gl) = comparison of models; *p< 0,001.