This study carefully examines two widely used methods for assessing marketing learning outcomes: multiple-choice tests and short-answer tests. Student scores on multiple-choice and short-answer portions of a midterm exam in consumer behavior were compared in terms of time to completion, reliability, and validity. The multiple-choice format was found to yield equivalent reliability and validity in a shorter amount of test-taking time. In contrast to some earlier studies, no gender effect was found: neither format differentially benefited men or women.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aiken, Lewis R. 1987. Testing with multiple-choice items. Journal of Research and Development in Education20 (4): 44-58.
2.
American Marketing Association. 2001. First PCM test dates scheduled. Marketing News35 (26 March): 33.
3.
Ashburn, Robert. 1938. An experiment in the essay-type question. Journal of Experimental Education7 (1): 1-3.
4.
Ausubel, David E. 2000. The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
5.
Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman, Green.
6.
Breland, Hunter M., Despina O. Danos, Helen D. Kahn, Melvin Y. Kubota, and Marilyn W. Bonner. 1994. Performance vs. objective testing and gender: An exploratory study of an advanced placement history examination. Journal of Educational Measurement31 (4): 275-93.
7.
Bridgeman, Brent, and Charles Lewis. 1994. The relationship of essay and multiple-choice scores with grades in college courses. Journal of Educational Measurement31 (1): 37-50.
8.
Bridgeman, Brent, and Donald R. Rock. 1993. Relationships among multiple-choice and open-ended analytical questions. Journal of Educational Measurement30 (4): 313-29.
9.
Churchill, Gilbert A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research16 (1): 64-73.
10.
Evans, William. 1984. Test wiseness: An examination of cue-using strategies. Journal of Experimental Education52: 141-44.
11.
Ghorpade, Jai, and James R. Lackritz. 1998. Equal opportunity in the classroom: Test construction in a diversity-sensitive environment. Journal of Management Education22 (4): 452-71.
12.
Hartley, Steve W., James Cross, and William Rudelius. 2000. Assessment issues in marketing education. In Proceedings of the Western Marketing Educator’s Association, edited by Katrin R Harich and Stuart Van Auken, 91-94. Lake Tahoe, NV: Western Marketing Educators’ Association.
13.
Hassmén, Peter, and Darwin P. Hunt. 1994. Human self-assessment in multiple-choice testing. Journal of Educational Measurement31 (2): 149-60.
14.
Krishnan, H. Shanker, and Thomas W. Porter. 1998. A process approach for developing skills in a consumer behavior course. Journal of Marketing Education20 (1): 24-34.
15.
Lukhele, Robert, David Thissen, and Howard Wainer. 1994. On the relative value of multiple-choice, constructed-response, and examinee-selected items on two achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement31 (3): 234-50.
16.
Maier, Norman R.F., and Gertrude G. Casselman. 1970. The SAT as a measure of problem-solving ability in males and females. Psychological Reports26: 927-39.
17.
Miller, Fred, Don Chamberlain, and Robert Seay. 1991. The current status of outcomes assessment in marketing education. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science19 (4): 353-62.
18.
Norris, Stephen P. 1989. Can we test validly for critical thinking? Educational Researcher18 (9): 21-26.
19.
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Rotfeld, Herbert. 1998. Are we teachers or job trainers? Academy of Marketing Science Quarterly2 (August): 2.
21.
Sax, Gilbert. 1997. Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
22.
Starch, D., and E.C. Elliott. 1912. Reliability of the grading of high school work in English. School Review20: 442-57.
