ArticlePloS one2026
Perceived factors associated with self-reported AI-assisted academic cheating among undergraduate students: Evidence from ethical ambiguity, technological affordances, institutional gaps, academic pressure, and peer comparison.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made academic cheating in higher education increasingly complex and difficult to regulate. Using a cross-sectional self-report survey of 863 undergraduate students at a university of science and technology in Vietnam, this study examined the latent structure of students' perceptions of factors associated with AI-assisted academic cheating and the associations of the resulting constructs with self-reported cheating behaviors. Data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and covariance-based structural equation modeling. The results supported a three-factor structure consisting of AI-Assisted Academic Cheating Behaviors (AICB), Ethical Ambiguity, Technological Affordances, and Institutional Gaps (ETIG), and Academic Pressure and Peer Comparison (APPC). In the structural model, ETIG was positively associated with AICB (β = 0.228, p < 0.001), whereas APPC showed a small negative association (β = -0.148, p = 0.022). Gender was also positively associated with AICB (β = 0.142, p < 0.001), with male students tending to report higher AICB scores than female students. Student seniority was not significantly associated with AICB (β = 0.018, p = 0.622). Field of study was positively associated with AICB (β = 0.104, p = 0.008), with non-STEM students tending to report higher AICB scores than STEM students. The model accounted for approximately 5% of the variance in AICB, indicating modest explanatory power. Overall, the findings suggest that unclear boundaries around acceptable AI use, ease of access to AI tools and difficulty detecting AI-generated work, gaps in institutional guidance, and academic pressure and peer comparison may warrant further examination in relation to AI-assisted academic cheating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.