Academic Dishonesty among Physical Therapy Students: A Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine academically dishonest behaviours based on physical therapy (PT) students' current practices and educators' prior behaviours as PT students. METHOD: A Web-based questionnaire was sent to 174 students and 250 educators from the PT programme at the University of Toronto. The questionnaire gathered data on demographics as well as on the prevalence of, seriousness of, and contributing factors to academic dishonesty (AD). RESULTS: In all, 52.4% of educators and 44.3% of students responded to the questionnaire over a 6-week data-collection period. Scenarios rated the most serious were the least frequently performed by educators and students. The impact of generation on attitudes and prevalence of AD was not significant. The factors most commonly reported as contributing to AD were school-related pressure, disagreement with evaluation methods, and the perception that "everyone else does it." CONCLUSION: This study parallels the findings of similar research conducted in other health care programmes: AD does occur within the PT curriculum. AD was more prevalent in situations associated with helping peers than in those associated with personal gain. The consistency in behaviours reported across generations suggests that some forms of cheating are accepted as the social norm and may be a function of the environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".