Factors associated with the perception of university professors about academic dishonesty in dental students from two peruvian universities: analysis under multivariable regression model
Ver/
Descargar
(application/pdf: 1.378Mb)
(application/pdf: 1.378Mb)
Fecha
2023-05-02Autor(es)
Ladera-Castañeda, Marysela
León-Málaga, Flavia
Espinoza-Olórtegui, Mary
Nicho-Valladares, Miriam
Cervantes-Ganoza, Luis
Verástegui-Sandoval, Arturo
Solís-Dante, Fredy
Castro-Rojas, Miriam
Cayo‑Rojas, César Félix
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemResumen
Background Academic dishonesty is an intentional behavior that transgresses ethics in the teaching-learning
process. The present study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with the perception of university professors about
academic dishonesty in dental students from two universities in the Peruvian capital.
Methods This cross-sectional, analytical study evaluated 181 professors from two Peruvian universities between
March and July 2022. A validated 28-item questionnaire was used to measure the perceived academic dishonesty of
their students. A logit model was used to evaluate the influence of the variables gender, marital status, place of origin,
academic degree, specialization, academic area, years of teaching experience, scientific publications, ethical training
and university of origin, considering a significance level of p<0.05.
Results According to the median, professors perceived that their students sometimes had attitudes and motivations
to commit academic dishonesty. The professors whose origin was the capital city were twice as likely to perceive
dishonest attitudes in dental students as those whose origin was a province (OR=2.04; 95% CI: 1.06–3.93). University
professors in pre-clinical courses were 0.37 times less likely to perceive dishonest attitudes than those teaching in
the dental clinic (OR=0.37; CI: 0.15–0.91). University professors in basic science courses and professors in preclinical
courses were 0.43 times (OR=0.43; CI: 0.19–0.96) and 0.39 times (OR=0.39; CI: 0.15–0.98) less likely to perceive
dishonest motivations in their students compared to university professors in the dental clinic. Gender, marital status,
academic degree, specialty, years of teaching experience, scientific publications and ethical training were not found
to be influential factors (p>0.05).
Conclusion Although all university professors surveyed perceived dishonest attitudes and motivations in their
students, university professors from the capital city perceived such attitudes more. In addition, being a preclinical
university professor was a hindered factor for perceiving such dishonest attitudes and motivations. It is advisable to
implement and constantly disseminate regulations that empower academic integrity as well as to manage a system
for reporting misconduct and to make students aware of the impact of dishonesty in their professional training.