IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v84y1994i2p193-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Achievement Differences on Multiple-Choice and Essay Tests in Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Walstad, William B
  • Becker, William E

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:84:y:1994:i:2:p:193-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28199405%2984%3A2%3C193%3AADOMAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2015. "An axiomatization of multiple-choice test scoring," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 24-27.
    3. Bagues, Manuel & Perez-Villadoniga, Maria J., 2012. "Do recruiters prefer applicants with similar skills? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 12-20.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Douglas McKee & Steven Zhu & George Orlov, 2023. "Econ-assessments.org: Automated Assessment of Economics Skills," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 4-14, January.
    7. Zhou Yang & Martin Tackie, 2016. "Risk Preference and Student Behavior on Multiple-Choice Exams," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 58-67.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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:aea:aecrev:v:84:y:1994:i:2:p:193-96. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.