You are here:

Comparing Intentions to Use University-Provided vs Vendor-Provided Multibiometric Authentication in Online Exams

, , ,

Campus-Wide Information Systems Volume 28, Number 2, ISSN 1065-0741


Purpose: Concerns for information security in e-learning systems have been raised previously. In the pursuit for better authentication approaches, few schools have implemented students' authentication during online exams beyond passwords. This paper aims to assess e-learners' intention to provide multibiometric data and use of multibiometrics during online exams. Design/methodology/approach: Based on data collected from 163 e-learners from two institutions, the authors compared such measures when provided by their university versus by a third-party service vendor. The multibiometrics discussed included fingerprint, face, and voice recognition. Findings: The results show a clear indication by the learners that they are significantly more willing to provide their biometric data and intend to use multibiometrics when provided by their university compared with same services provided by a third-party vendor. Research limitations/implications: Research implications include the need for better understanding of multibiometrics implementations in educational settings. Practical implications: The findings are profound for vendors of multibiometrics as they must adjust their approach when implementing such technologies at higher educational institutions, rather than simply opt to license the use of such solutions and to host them. Originality/value: This study helps higher educational institutions better understand that learners do not appear to object to the use of multibiometrics technologies during online exams, rather the way in which such technologies are implemented and managed on-campus. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)


Levy, Y., Ramim, M.M., Furnell, S.M. & Clarke, N.L. (2011). Comparing Intentions to Use University-Provided vs Vendor-Provided Multibiometric Authentication in Online Exams. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 102-113. Retrieved December 6, 2019 from .

This record was imported from ERIC on April 19, 2013. [Original Record]

ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.

Copyright for this record is held by the content creator. For more details see ERIC's copyright policy.