International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance

Vol. 41 No. 1 (2026)
Research Articles

Students’ Experiences with Online Proctoring: Scale Development and Initial Validation

HTML PDF
  • Daniel Woldeab,
  • Thomas Brothen
Daniel Woldeab
Metropolitan State University
Bio
Thomas Brothen
University of Minnesota-TC
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i1.1405

Published 2026-06-22

How to Cite

Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2026). Students’ Experiences with Online Proctoring: Scale Development and Initial Validation. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 41(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2026.v41.i1.1405
Copyright Notice

Abstract

As online and hybrid course offerings continue to expand, online exam proctoring is an increasingly common assessment tool in higher education. And although a growing body of research has examined online proctoring in relation to academic integrity, exam anxiety, and student performance; this literature remains fragmented and lacks a standardized instrument for fully assessing student experiences with proctored exams. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and initially validate a multidimensional scale measuring student experiences with online proctoring. Using a two-phase design, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with a sample of undergraduate students (N = 321) to identify the underlying factor structure of the scale, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with an independent sample (N = 123) to evaluate the plausibility of the resulting measurement model. The EFA supported a three-factor solution: (1) Exam Quality and System Fairness; (2) Proctoring Anxiety and Concerns; and (3) Preference for and Benefits of Online Proctoring. Together these factors yielded a refined 12-item scale. CFA results indicated acceptable model fit and coherent standardized factor loadings, providing initial empirical support for the proposed structure. Collectively, the findings suggest that the scale offers a concise and theoretically grounded tool for assessing student experiences with online proctoring and provides a foundation for future research and institutional evaluation of online and hybrid assessment practices.

Keywords: online proctoring, scale development, initial validation, EFA, CFA

Expériences étudiantes de la surveillance des examens en ligne : développement et validation initiale d’une échelle

Résumé : Alors que l’offre de cours en ligne et hybrides continue de se développer, la surveillance des examens en ligne (online proctoring) devient un outil d’évaluation de plus en plus répandu dans l’enseignement supérieur. Bien qu’un nombre croissant de recherches se soient intéressées à la surveillance en ligne en lien avec l’intégrité académique, l’anxiété liée aux examens et la performance étudiante, cette littérature demeure fragmentée et il n’existe pas instrument normalisé permettant d’évaluer de manière globale l’expérience des étudiants lors d’examens surveillés à distance. Cette étude a donc eu pour objectif de développer et de valider de manière préliminaire une échelle multidimensionnelle mesurant les expériences étudiantes de la surveillance des examens en ligne.

Reposant sur une recherche en deux phases, une analyse factorielle exploratoire (AFE) a été menée auprès d’un échantillon d’étudiants de premier cycle (N = 321) afin d’identifier la structure factorielle sous-jacente de l’échelle. Cette étape a été suivie d’une analyse factorielle confirmatoire (AFC) réalisée auprès d’un échantillon indépendant (N = 123) pour évaluer la plausibilité du modèle de mesure obtenu. Les résultats de l’AFE ont soutenu une solution à trois facteurs, conduisant à une version affinée de l’échelle composée de 12 items : (1) qualité de l’examen et équité du système, (2) anxiété et préoccupations liées à la surveillance, et (3) préférence pour la surveillance en ligne et perception de ses bénéfices.

Les résultats de l’AFC ont révélé un ajustement acceptable du modèle ainsi que des saturations factorielles standardisées cohérentes, apportant un premier soutien empirique à la structure proposée. Dans l’ensemble, les résultats suggèrent que cette échelle constitue un outil concis et théoriquement fondé pour évaluer les expériences étudiantes de la surveillance des examens en ligne. Elle offre également une base pour de futures recherches ainsi que pour l’évaluation institutionnelle des pratiques d’évaluation en ligne et hybrides.

Mots-clés : surveillance des examens en ligne, développement d’échelle, validation initiale, analyse factorielle exploratoire (AFE), analyse factorielle confirmatoire (AFC).

HTML PDF

References

  1. Anderi, E., Sherman, L., Saymuah, S., Ayers, E., & Kromrei, H. T. (2020, August 6). Learning communities engage medical students: A COVID-19 virtual conversation series. Cureus,12(8), Article Number: e9593. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.9593
  2. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(149). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  3. Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(38). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
  4. Chin, M. (2020, April 29). Exam anxiety: How remote test-proctoring is creeping students out. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21232777/examity-remote-test-proctoring-online-class-education
  5. Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2021). Good proctor or “Big Brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1581–1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1
  6. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7). 1–9. https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/teln-best-practices-in-exploratory-factor-analysis.pdf
  7. Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge.
  8. DeVellis, R. F. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). Sage.
  9. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
  10. Galope, R., Bilyk, R., & Woldeab, D. (2024). Exploiting a natural experiment in assessing student learning outcomes in public and nonprofit administration: A demonstration. Teaching Public Administration, 42(3), 352–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/01447394231223071
  11. Heinrich, E. (2025). A systematic-narrative review of online proctoring systems and a case for open standards. Open Praxis, 17(3), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.3.836
  12. Jiang, X., Goh, T. T., Chen, X., Liu, M., & Yang, B. (2023). Investigating university students’ online proctoring acceptance during COVID-19: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8121
  13. Jones, L., & Petruzzi, D. C. (1995). Test anxiety: A review of theory and current treatment. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 10(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J035v10n01_02
  14. Kahu, E. R., Stephens, C., Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2014). Linking academic emotions and student engagement: Mature-aged distance students’ transition to university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895305
  15. Kharbat, F. F., & Abu Daabes, A. S. (2021). E-proctored exams during the COVID-19 pandemic: A close understanding. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6589–6605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10458-7
  16. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
  17. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.
  18. National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Postbaccalaureate Enrollment. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/chb
  19. Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., & Aleksieva, L. (2021, March). Forced introduction of e-assessment during COVID-19 pandemic: How did the students feel about that? (Sofia University case). In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2333, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0041862
  20. Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.929
  21. Schmitt, T. A., Sass, D. A., Chappelle, W., & Thompson, W. (2018). Selecting the “best” factor structure and moving measurement validation forward: An illustration. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(4), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1449116
  22. Slade, C., Lawrie, G., Taptamat, N., Browne, E., Sheppard, K., & Matthews, K. E. (2022). Insights into how academics reframed their assessment during a pandemic: disciplinary variation and assessment as afterthought. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1933379
  23. Slater, J. (Dec 12, 2025) Professors are turning to this old-school method to stop AI use on exams. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/12/12/ai-artificial-intelligence-college-oral-exam/
  24. Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (2017). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  25. Woldeab, D., Lindsay, T. A., & Brothen, T. (2017). Under the watchful eye of online proctoring. In Innovative learning and teaching: Experiments across the disciplines (pp. 147–160). University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. https://open.lib.umn.edu/innovativeteaching/chapter/under-the-watchful-eye-of-online-proctoring/
  26. Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2019). 21st century assessment: Online proctoring, test anxiety, and student performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 34(1), 1–10. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1106
  27. Woldeab, D., Yawson, R. M., & Osafo, E. (2020). A systematic meta-analytic review of thinking beyond the comparison of online versus traditional learning. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 14(1), 1–24. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1276404.pdf
  28. Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2021). Video surveillance of online exam proctoring: Exam anxiety and student performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 36(1), 1–26. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1204
  29. Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2024). Exploring the impact: How online exam proctoring reduces cheating and enhances course legitimacy. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 39(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2024.v39.i1.1327
  30. Woldeab, D., Brothen, T., & Barbu, A. (2025). Procrastination and online exam proctoring: Exam anxiety and exam performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 40(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2025.v40.i1.1371
  31. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. Plenum Press.