↓ Skip to main content

Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented Theory of Planned Behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented Theory of Planned Behavior
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00535
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camilla J. Rajah-Kanagasabai, Lynne D. Roberts

Abstract

This study examined the utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior model, augmented by descriptive norms and justifications, for predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students. A convenience sample of 205 research active Western Australian university students (47 male, 158 female, ages 18-53 years, M = 22, SD = 4.78) completed an online survey. There was a low level of engagement in research misconduct, with approximately one in seven students reporting data fabrication and one in eight data falsification. Path analysis and model testing in LISREL supported a parsimonious two step mediation model, providing good fit to the data. After controlling for social desirability, the effect of attitudes, subjective norms, descriptive norms and perceived behavioral control on student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices was mediated by justifications and then intention. This revised augmented model accounted for a substantial 40.8% of the variance in student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices, demonstrating its predictive utility. The model can be used to target interventions aimed at reducing student engagement in research misconduct and questionable research practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 25 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
#16,636,634
of 24,476,221 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,496
of 32,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,636
of 268,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#367
of 501 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,476,221 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 501 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.