Cheaters Exposed Analyzing Statistical Anomalies

Hugh Pickens writes "Proctors and teachers can't watch everyone while they take tests — not when some students can text with their phones in their pockets, so with tests increasingly important in education — used to determine graduation, graduate school admission, and — the latest — merit pay and tenure for teachers, Trip Gabriel writes that schools are turning to 'data forensics' to catch cheaters, searching for data anomalies where the chances of random agreement are astronomical. In addition to looking for copying, statisticians hunt for illogical patterns, like test-takers who did better on harder questions than easy ones, a sign of advance knowledge of part of a test or look for unusually large score gains from a previous test by a student or class. Since Caveon Test Security, whose clients have included the College Board, the Law School Admission Council, and more than a dozen states and big city school districts, began working for the state of Mississippi in 2006, cheating has declined about 70 percent, says James Mason, director of the State Department of Education's Office of Student Assessment. 'People know that if you cheat there is an extremely high chance you're going to get caught,' says Mason."

Re:This doesn't prove anything

[Desler]

Yes, the anomalies in and of themselves do not prove anything hence why the article says:

When the anomalies are highly unlikely -- their random occurrence, for example, is greater than one in one million -- Caveon flags the tests for further investigation by school administrators.

Re:This doesn't prove anything

[Surt]

Yet according to Caveon Test Security, I'd be a cheater.

According to the article, according to Caveon Test Security, you might be a cheater.

So you'd be investigated. And you'd pass investigation, because you didn't cheat.

Re:Wouldn't this require specially designed tests?

[StuartHankins]

If it doesn't stand up to peer review, or they don't bother to submit it to peer review, then this is likely snake oil. We (the proposed paying client) are not necessarily peers qualified to review their algorithms, but the peer community is. That is how peer review works.

Are you trying to be disingenuous, or did you really not understand the GP's point? Reading comprehension indeed.

Re:False positives?

[Rinikusu]

Not even close. As long as the group did the research, the presentation, and the conclusions, a professional editor is only going to clean up grammar, suggest paper flows, etc. When I was in high school and in college, we were ENCOURAGED to get other people to proof-read our papers. If my mom or dad happened to be a professional writer, you damn well better believe I'd ask them to read my paper. Cheating is paying someone to write your paper for you, without doing any research or anything yourself.