IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accted/v26y2017i4p291-315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of accounting question response formats on student performance

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Jonick
  • Jennifer Schneider
  • Daniel Boylan

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to examine the effect of different response formats on student performance on introductory accounting exam questions. The study analyzes 1104 accounting students’ responses to quantitative questions presented in two formats: multiple-choice and fill-in. Findings indicate that response format impacts student performance on most of the questions, in favor of the multiple-choice. A second goal is to discover how effectively wrong-answer options in multiple-choice questions capture students’ actual incorrect thinking. Analyses of the fill-in questions showed students wrote in a wide array of incorrect answers, many of which would not have been offered as multiple-choice distracters. Answers filled in were often based on misguided logic that test question authors might never have anticipated. Students’ incorrect reasoning on quantitative fill-in questions can inform instructors on how to proactively address student misconceptions and write more effective multiple-choice items.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Jonick & Jennifer Schneider & Daniel Boylan, 2017. "The effect of accounting question response formats on student performance," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 291-315, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accted:v:26:y:2017:i:4:p:291-315
    DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2017.1292464
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09639284.2017.1292464
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09639284.2017.1292464?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Apostolou, Barbara & Dorminey, Jack W. & Hassell, John M. & Rebele, James E., 2018. "Accounting education literature review (2017)," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-23.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ambrose & Cheryl A. Kier, 2017. "On Students’ Perception of a Multi-Scheme Assessment Method," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 17(1), pages 40-52, Spring.
    5. Ross Guest, 2013. "Towards Learning Standards in Economics in Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 51-66, March.
    6. Karolina Macháčková & Jiří Zelený & Dana Kolářová & Zbyněk Vinš, 2021. "Nature Ideas Exchange: Education of Sustainable Business Principles Based on Parallels with Forest Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Tang, Tommy, 2023. "Approach to learning for assessment in economics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 571-584.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Melanie A. Fennell & Irene R. Foster, 2021. "Test Format and Calculator Use in the Testing of Basic Math Skills for Principles of Economics: Experimental Evidence," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 66(1), pages 29-45, March.
    12. Mallik, Girijasankar & Shankar, Sriram, 2016. "Does prior knowledge of economics and higher level mathematics improve student learning in principles of economics?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 66-73.
    13. 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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:accted:v:26:y:2017:i:4:p:291-315. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAED20 .

    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.