IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/12-777.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Constructed-response versus multiple choice: the impact on performance in combination with gender

Author

Listed:
  • P. EVERAERT
  • N. ARTHUR

Abstract

This paper addresses the question of whether the increasing use of multiple-choice questions will favour particular student groups, i.e. male or female students. This paper empirically examines the existence of a gender effect by comparing the relative performance of male and female students in both multiple-choice and constructed-response questions in financial accounting examinations. The study is motivated by the increasing number of students in accounting classes; changes in the gender mix in accounting classes and debates over appropriate means of assessment. We find that female students outperform male students in answering questions of both formats, but their superiority in multiple-choice questions is diminished in comparison with constructed-response questions. This might suggest that multiple choice questions favour male students more than female students. The results hold even if we restrict the comparison to multiple-choice and constructed-response questions having the same general content (e.g. exercise type). Furthermore, the diminishing result was found both for undergraduate and postgraduate students. These results should prompt those involved in assessment to be cautious in planning the type of assessment used in evaluating students.

Suggested Citation

  • P. Everaert & N. Arthur, 2012. "Constructed-response versus multiple choice: the impact on performance in combination with gender," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/777, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:12/777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_12_777.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Randall Krieg & Bulent Uyar, 2001. "Student performance in business and economics statistics: Does exam structure matter?," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 25(2), pages 229-241, June.
    2. Lee Parker, 2005. "Corporate governance crisis down under: Post-Enron accounting education and research inertia," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 383-394.
    3. Becker, William E & Johnston, Carol, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(231), pages 348-357, December.
    4. Walstad, William B & Becker, William E, 1994. "Achievement Differences on Multiple-Choice and Essay Tests in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 193-196, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. W. Robert Reed & Stephen Hickson, 2011. "More Evidence on the Use of Constructed-Response Questions in Principles of Economics Classes," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 28-49.
    2. Neal Arthur & Patricia Everaert, 2012. "Gender and Performance in Accounting Examinations: Exploring the Impact of Examination Format," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 471-487, October.
    3. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    4. Maliheh Mansouri & Julie Rowney, 2014. "The Dilemma of Accountability for Professionals: A Challenge for Mainstream Management Theories," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 45-56, August.
    5. Sara Moggi & Gina Rossi & Chiara Leardini, 2019. "How to be accountable to local stakeholders: A lesson from savings banks," CONTABILIT? E CULTURA AZIENDALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 35-67.
    6. Ross Guest, 2013. "Towards Learning Standards in Economics in Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 51-66, March.
    7. Aila VIRTANEN & Tuomo TAKALA, 2016. "Accountability Of Corporate Boards In Finland," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(1), pages 5-24, March.
    8. W. Doyle Smith, 2002. "Applying Angelo's Teacher's Dozen to Undergraduate Introductory Economics Classes: A Call for Greater Interactive Learning," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 539-549, Fall.
    9. William E. Becker & Carol Johnston, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(4), pages 348-357, December.
    10. P. Fahad & P. Mubarak Rahman, 2020. "Impact of corporate governance on CSR disclosure," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(2), pages 155-167, September.
    11. Gebreiter, Florian, 2022. "A profession in peril? University corporatization, performance measurement and the sustainability of accounting academia," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Nixon Chan & Peter E. Kennedy, 2002. "Are Multiple‐Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple‐Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed‐Response Exam Questions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(4), pages 957-971, April.
    13. Andrzej Piosik & Marzena Strojek-Filus & Aleksandra Sulik-Górecka & Aleksandra Szewieczek, 2019. "Gender and Age as Determinants of Job Satisfaction in the Accounting Profession: Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Parker, Lee D., 2012. "Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and relevance," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 54-70.
    15. Abhijit Sharma, 2015. "Use of Bloomberg Professional in support of finance and economics teaching," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1115618-111, December.
    16. Thompson, Alexi S. & Jager, Abigail L. & Burton, Robert O., Jr., 2012. "Do Men and Women Perform Differently on Different Types of Test Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119771, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Yilmaz Guney, 2009. "Exogenous and Endogenous Factors Influencing Students' Performance in Undergraduate Accounting Modules," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 51-73.
    18. Ken Rebeck & Carlos Asarta, 2011. "Methods of Assessment in the College Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Marisa Agostini & Giovanni Favero, 2012. "Accounting fraud, business failure and creative auditing: A micro-analysis of the strange case of Sunbeam Corp," Working Papers 12, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, revised Mar 2013.
    20. Merle L. Canfield & Trisha M. Kivisalu & Carol Van Der Karr & Chelsi King & Colleen E. Phillips, 2015. "The Use of Course Grades in the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for General Education," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gender; accounting; assessment; multiple-choice questions;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:12/777. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.