IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accted/v21y2012i5p471-487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender and Performance in Accounting Examinations: Exploring the Impact of Examination Format

Author

Listed:
  • Neal Arthur
  • Patricia Everaert

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. Using data from Belgium, 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 in 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

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accted:v:21:y:2012:i:5:p:471-487
    DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2011.650447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09639284.2011.650447
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09639284.2011.650447?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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Moy Yin Koh & Hian Chye Koh, 1999. "The determinants of performance in an accountancy degree programme," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 13-29.
    6. Elizabeth Gammie & Brenda Paver & Bob Gammie & Fiona Duncan, 2003. "Gender differences in accounting education: an undergraduate exploration," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 177-196.
    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. Ahmet Onay* & Serdar Benligiray, 2018. "Internal Factors Affecting Student Performance in Accounting Courses at a Vocational School," Sumerianz Journal of Economics and Finance, Sumerianz Publication, vol. 1(3), pages 82-90, 09-2018.
    2. Huikku, Jari & Myllymäki, Emma-Riikka & Ojala, Hannu, 2022. "Gender differences in the first course in accounting: An achievement goal approach," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3).
    3. Hadsell, Lester, 2020. "Not for want of trying: Effort and Success of women in principles of microeconomics," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    4. Md.Abdulla Al Mamun, 2019. "Assessing the Gender Effects on Students’ Accounting Course Performance in Bangladesh: A case study of Bangladesh University of Business & Technology," Journal of Business, LAR Center Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, January.
    5. Apostolou, Barbara & Dorminey, Jack W. & Hassell, John M. & Watson, Stephanie F., 2013. "Accounting education literature review (2010–2012)," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 107-161.
    6. Opdecam, Evelien & Everaert, Patricia, 2022. "Effect of a summer school on formative and summative assessment in accounting education," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Ross Guest, 2013. "Towards Learning Standards in Economics in Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 51-66, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Tang, Tommy, 2023. "Approach to learning for assessment in economics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 571-584.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Tracey Mcdowall & Beverley Jackling, 2006. "The Impact of Computer-Assisted Learning on Academic Grades: An Assessment of Students' Perceptions," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 377-389.
    15. 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.
    16. Victoria Bogdan & Delia Deliu & Tomina Săveanu & Olimpia Iuliana Ban & Dorina Nicoleta Popa, 2020. "Roll the Dice—Let’s See If Differences Really Matter! Accounting Judgments and Sustainable Decisions in the Light of a Gender and Age Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-31, September.
    17. Angus Duff, 2004. "Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 409-430.
    18. 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.
    19. Niamh M. Brennan & Jill Solomon, 2008. "Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: an overview," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(7), pages 885-906, September.
    20. Aleksandra Pop‐Vasileva & Kevin Baird & Bill Blair, 2011. "University corporatisation," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(4), pages 408-439, May.

    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:21:y:2012:i:5:p:471-487. 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.