2011
DOI: 10.19030/ctms.v3i2.5276
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Major Field Achievement Test In Business - Guidelines For Improved Outcome Scores - Part I

Abstract: Outcomes measurements have always been an important part of proving to outside constituencies how you measure up to other schools with your business programs. A common nationally-normed exam that is used is the Major Field Achievement Test in Business from Educational Testing Services. Our paper discusses some guidelines that we are pilot testing to see if we can improve not only our lowest score, marketing majors in the finance area, but all of our overall outcome scores in the eight (8) segmented areas cover… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Score and nine Assessment Indicators associated with each of the previously described topical areas. While comparisons to scores from previously administered exams may be of interest, prior research has consistently shown that the primary way institutions interpret their performance is through a comparison of their institutional Mean Total Score to national averages (Bush, Duncan, Sexton, & West, 2008;McLaughlin & White, 2007;Wilson, 2008;Word & Rook, 2012). ETS enables these comparisons by providing data tables that supply scaled scores and percentiles for institutional means drawn directly from all administrations of the MFT-B during a focal period (2013b).…”
Section: Following Administration Of the Mft-b Ets Generates A Localmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Score and nine Assessment Indicators associated with each of the previously described topical areas. While comparisons to scores from previously administered exams may be of interest, prior research has consistently shown that the primary way institutions interpret their performance is through a comparison of their institutional Mean Total Score to national averages (Bush, Duncan, Sexton, & West, 2008;McLaughlin & White, 2007;Wilson, 2008;Word & Rook, 2012). ETS enables these comparisons by providing data tables that supply scaled scores and percentiles for institutional means drawn directly from all administrations of the MFT-B during a focal period (2013b).…”
Section: Following Administration Of the Mft-b Ets Generates A Localmentioning
confidence: 99%