Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

Contents:

Author Info

  • P. EVERAERT

    ()

  • N. ARTHUR
Registered author(s):

    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.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.feb.ugent.be/nl/Ondz/wp/Papers/wp_12_777.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration in its series Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium with number 12/777.

    as in new window
    Length: 26 pages
    Date of creation: Mar 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:12/777

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Hoveniersberg 4, B-9000 Gent
    Phone: ++ 32 (0) 9 264 34 61
    Fax: ++ 32 (0) 9 264 35 92
    Web page: http://www.ugent.be/eb
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Gender; accounting; assessment; multiple-choice questions;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. 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 348-57, December.
    2. 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 193-96, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nathalie Verhaeghe).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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