08832323.2014.916648
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
As Compared to What? Characteristics of the
AACSB Institutions That Utilize the Major Field Test
in Business
Agnieszka Bielinska-Kwapisz & F. William Brown
To cite this article: Agnieszka Bielinska-Kwapisz & F. William Brown (2014) As Compared to
What? Characteristics of the AACSB Institutions That Utilize the Major Field Test in Business,
Journal of Education for Business, 89:7, 373-381, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.916648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.916648
Published online: 29 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 38
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:47
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 373–381, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.916648
As Compared to What? Characteristics
of the AACSB Institutions That Utilize the Major
Field Test in Business
Agnieszka Bielinska-Kwapisz and F. William Brown
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
The publishers of the Major Field Test in Business (MFT-B), an assessment of learning
instrument, provide a list of institutions utilizing the instrument and a table that allows for
comparison of local MFT-B mean scores to those of other institutions. The absence of
information regarding the comparison group’s characteristics limits the validity of that
comparison. This study provides a comparison of the institutions accredited by the
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International, those that use the
MFT-B and those accredited institutions that do not, and an estimation of the probability that
a school will use the MFT-B for assessment purposes.
Keywords: accreditation, assessment, characteristics, comparison, Major Field Test in
Business, MFT, prediction
The Major Field Test in Business (MFT-B) is a widely used
assessment of learning (AOL) instrument intended for use
in undergraduate business programs. The Educational Testing Service (ETS), publisher of the MFT-B, describes the
instrument as going beyond an assessment of factual knowledge regarding business by evaluating senior students’ ability to analyze and solve problems, understand relationships,
and interpret material from their major field of study (ETS,
2013a). The 120 multiple-choice questions in the MFT-B
cover topics in nine subject areas: accounting, economics,
management, quantitative business analysis, finance, marketing, legal and social environment, information systems,
and international issues. This value proposition has attracted
considerable attention among undergraduate business institutions in the United States. The ETS reports that from September 2010 to June 2012, 585 institutions in the United
States utilized the MFT-B in their assessment of their business students’ learning (ETS, 2013a).
Given its wide usage, it is not surprising that the MFT-B
has attracted considerable attention from researchers. To
date, almost all of that attention has been directed toward
efforts to identify student performance determinants.
Correspondence should be addressed to F. William Brown, Montana
State University, Jake Jabs College of Business and Entrepreneurship,
P.O. Box 173040, Bozeman, MT 59717–3040, USA. E-mail:
billbrown@montana.edu
Standardized test scores (ACT/SAT), grade point averages
(GPA), major field of study, and gender have been consistently cited as determinative covariates (e.g., Allen & Bycio,
1997; Bagamery, Lasik, & Nixon, 2005; Barboza & Pesek,
2012; Bean & Bernardi, 2002; Benham, Bielinska-Kwapisz,
& Brown, 2012; Bielinska-Kwapisz, Brown, & Semenik,
2012a, 2012b; Black & Duhon, 2003; Bycio & Allen; 2007;
Contreras, Badua, Chen, & Adrian, 2011; Gerlich & Sollosy,
2009; Mason, Coleman, Steagall, Gallo, & Fabritius, 2011;
Mirchandani, Lynch, & Hamilton, 2001; Rook & Tanyel,
2009; Settlage & Settlage, 2011; Terry, Mills, Rosa, & Sollosy, 2009; Zeis, Waronska, & Fuller, 2009). All of these
studies use a specific institution’s data in order to gain
insight into their students’ performance. While these efforts
can be helpful in understanding local performance, Bielinska-Kwapisz et al. (2012a) and others (e.g., Black & Duhon,
2003; Bycio & Allen; 2007; Contreras et al., 2009; Green,
Stone, & Zegeye, 2014) have pointed out that when interpreting an MFT-B institutional mean, the referent
institution’s characteristics need to be taken into account in
order to make that interpretation meaningful.
Following administration of the MFT-B, the ETS generates a local institutional mean total 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
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
374
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
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). The
ETS enables these comparisons by providing data tables
that supply scaled scores and percentiles for institutional
means drawn directly from all administrations of the MFTB during a focal period (ETS, 2013b). These tables allow
for the comparison of school performance with all other
domestic schools administering the MFT-B during the
same period. An examination of the table permits a determination as to how many institutions in the data had mean
scores lower than the local score. However, this comparison
is not meaningful if AACSB schools that do use MFT-B are
not a random sample of all AACSB schools. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to determine if there are significant differences between programs that do and do not use
MFT-B for assessment purposes and what are the characteristics of schools that are most likely to adopt MFT-B. If significant differences between these programs exist, then any
comparison of local MFT-B scores to the Institutional
Means Score Distribution, which ETS provides, has significant limitations. Smith, Clements, and Olson (2010),
describing advantages of the MFT-B test, stated, “the most
frequently cited advantage is the ability to compare scores
across national norms. . . . If a school’s percentile ratings
are good, recruiters and public relations personnel may use
those results in promotional materials to substantiate the
quality of the college” (p. 251). However, Green et al.
(2014) had a very different view and opined that the
unknown nature of the comparison group constituted a
major drawback of the MFT-B assessment: “A student’s
scaled score depends on his/her performance relative to that
of all students who took the test. Who are these students?”
(p. 22). They pointed out that “even choosing to compare
an institution’s scores only against others accredited by or
members of an accrediting agency is problematic as there
are considerable quality differences across those
institutions” (Green et al., 2014, p. 7). This general problem
is recognized by ETS, which notes that MFT-B score distributions should be comparative rather than normative,
“because the institutions included in the data do not represent proportionally the various types of higher education
institutions” (ETS, 2013a, p. 5).
Unlike widely taken individual aptitude tests (e.g., SAT,
ACT, GRE, GMAT), there is no reason to believe, in the
case of the MFT-B, that the comparison scores necessarily
come from typical or similarly situated undergraduate business programs. At present, we know little about the schools
that use MFT-B assessment and there has not been any systematic examination to determine if the schools in the comparison group are representative of undergraduate business
schools in general, or the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International accredited schools specifically. As is more completely explained
in the Data section, in 2011–2012 there were 477 AACSBaccredited undergraduate business programs in the United
States. From September 2010 to June 2012, 585 institutions
utilized the MFT-B but only 196 of these (34%) were
AACSB-accredited. Institutions pointing to their MFT-B
scores and percentile rankings as evidence that their program is fulfilling or making progress toward its stated mission, or that its students have a particular rank in business
knowledge as compared to all other undergraduates, are in
fact utilizing a referent group in which a minority (one
third) have AACSB accreditation status. Thus, they run the
risk of over- or misstating the true nature of their rankings.
Our study seeks to begin closing this gap in the literature
by providing the first systematic, detailed description of
schools that use MFT-B assessment and comparing them to
schools that do not use MFT-B. The MFT-B is often a cornerstone of institutional AOL programs and the results play
an important role in curricular and accreditation decisions.
A major part of our study’s analysis is a data-based description of MFT-B utilization by AACSB-accredited business
schools and the characteristics of those schools. Our study
also includes a probability estimate for whether or not a
given school will use the MFT-B for assessment purposes.
As of 2013, the base price for the online version of the
exam was $25 per test ($24 for more than 100 tests) and the
paper-based version price was $27 each ($26 for more than
100 tests; Educational Testing Service, 2013a). Our study’s
results should be of value because the test is relatively
expensive and utilized for a significant purpose, and appropriate interpretation of scores is important.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study is informed and inspired by the following factors:
the widespread use of the MFT-B,
the demonstrated interest of institutions utilizing the
MFT-B to comparing their local scores to those of
other institutions and national means,
the almost complete lack of any information regarding the MFT-B comparison group provided by the
ETS, and
the critical importance of an understanding the characteristics of the referent group in order to make comparisons to local scores useful and meaningful.
The following two research questions were used to guide
this study:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): Are AACSB-accredited institutions using the MFT-B significantly different than
the ones that do not use the MFT-B?
RQ2: What factors affect the probability that a school will
adopt the MFT-B?
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
375
performances “across institutions are invalid because the
test results are significantly driven by individual student
characteristics of an unknown (and unknowable) group
of students enrolled at diverse nonrandom business
schools” (p. 24).
In order to compare schools that use and do not use
MFT-B we use the following institutional variables: school
general and scholarly orientation (as defined by the
AACSB), Carnegie Class classification, public or private
institution, enrollment, number of full time faculty, percent
of full time faculty with doctoral degrees, number of full
time equivalent faculty, student–faculty ratio, percent of
participating faculty, geographical region, percent of other
schools in the state that use the MFT-B test, types of degree
offered, tuition, and budget data (see Table 1).
Answers to these questions will help institutions to
better understand both the potential benefits and limitations associated with the comparison of their local scores
to the ETS provided means. Results should also be helpful to institutions contemplating use of the MFT-B as it
will provide, for the first time, some systematic analysis
to accompany heretofore entirely intuitive assumptions
regarding the characteristics of referent institutions, particularly those holding AACSB accreditation. Finally, the
results of this study will provide the first empirical contributions to an emerging discussion regarding the validity of using the MFT-B as an assessment tool. Green
et al. (2014) opined that comparisons of MFTB
METHOD
Participants
We matched information regarding all the available characteristics of U.S. AACSB-accredited institutions (AACSB,
2013) with the ETS list of schools that use the MFT-B
(2013b). The focus of our study is limited to data from institutions that offer undergraduate business degrees.
Data
Previous studies utilized surveys to estimate the percentage
of AACSB institutions utilizing the MFT-B. Martell (2007)
estimated that 46% of AACSB-accredited schools used the
MFT-B as an assessment method, while Pringle and Michel
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for Schools With Undergraduate Programs (Eliminates 15 Schools That Do Not Offer Undergraduate Education)
Variable
Definition
M
Median
SD
Minimum
Maximum
n
AACSB
AACSB accredited in: Business D 0
Business and Accounting D 1
School General Orientation from 1 to 7
School Scholarly Orientation from 1 to 13
2005 Carnegie Class broad classification
Full time undergraduate enrollment
Number of full time faculty
Percent of full time faculty with doctoral degrees
Number of full time equivalent faculty (FT C PT)
Student/faculty ratio undergraduate
% of participating faculty
% of other schools in the state
that use MFT Bachelor
NE D 1
MW D 1
South D 1
West D 1
Public D 1
Private D 0
General master’s degree D 1
(MBA)
Specific master’s degree D 1
Doctoral degree D 1
No program D 1
Tuition and fees—Undergrad: In-state
Tuition and fees—MBA: In-state
Tuition and fees—Undergrad: Out-of-state
Tuition and fees—MBA: Out-of-state
Operating budget
Budget/NrFaculty
0.35
0
0.48
0
1
477
2.91
6.12
1.65
1465.38
63.34
84.26
70.69
20.76
75.80
39.86
2
6
2
1073
51
84.6
58.57
19.56
75.68
40
2.06
4.39
0.65
1182.86
83.62
10.75
45.54
10.02
13.14
20.99
1
1
1
84
10
37
10.75
2.52
7.07
0
7
13
4
8498
1641
179.54
315
93.7
100
100
452
452
473
428
448
438
449
427
425
473
0.21
0.22
0.40
0.16
0.70
0
0
0
0
1
0.41
0.41
0.49
0.37
0.46
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
477
477
477
476
477
0.91
1
0.29
0
1
451
0.65
0.27
1
0
0.48
0.44
0
0
1
1
451
451
$15,306
$29,757
$22,896
$41,009
$17,379,398
$241,453
$8,933
$22,362
$20,205
$36,782
$9,780,006
$197,215
$12,157
$21,393
$9,046
$21,055
$21,148,748
$144,587
0
0
0
0
$149,310
$8,783
$45,760
$109,600
$45,760
$11,1150
$188,680,970
$1,338,163
$445
$396
$440
$392
$446
$445
BPA
BPB
CClassBroad
Enrollment
NrFaculty
PhDFaculty
FTE
SFRatio
PerParticipate
Others
NE
MW
S
W
Public
MGen
MSpc
Doc
TuitionInUG
TuitionInMBA
TuitionOutUG
TuitionOutMBA
Budget
BudgetFac
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
376
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
(2006) estimated that 30% of AACSB-accredited business
schools used the MFT-B. The AACSB reports that in
2011–2012 there were 477 U.S. AACSB-accredited
schools offering undergraduate business degrees (65% of
which were accredited in business and 35% in both business
and accounting; AACSB, (2013). We summarize definitions and descriptive statistics regarding these institutions
in Table 1. Of the 477 institutions that held an accreditation
of their undergraduate business program during 2011–
2012, 41% (n D 196) administered the MFT-B during the
most recent reporting period.
Amongst the AACSB-accredited institutions 70%
were public, 91% offered master’s general degrees, 65%
offered master’s specific degrees, and 27% offered doctoral degrees. The mean undergraduate in-state tuition
was $15,306, with a median of $8,933. The mean outof-state tuition was $22,897, with a median of $20,206.
The mean institutional operating budget was
$17,379,398 with a median of $9,780,006 and ranged
from $149,310 to $188,680,970. The mean budget per
faculty member was $241,453. The mean enrollment
was 1,465 students, with 63 full time faculty members
and 21:1 student-to-faculty ratio. On average, 84% of
the full time faculty had a PhD and 76% were participating faculty.
We divided the states in which the AACSB-accredited
institutions were located into regions according to the U.S.
Census Bureau classification. An examination of that distribution reveals that 40% of the schools were located in the
South (S), 22% in the Midwest (MW), 21% in the Northeast
(NE), and 16% in the West (W). The AACSB categorizes
schools according to their general and scholarly
orientation.1
The general orientation consists of seven categories
(Business Priority Category A [BPA]-1–7) and lists
schools with high, medium, and low emphasis in teaching, intellectual contributions, and service. Teaching was
the high emphasis of almost half of the AACSB-accredited schools (46%), followed by institutions with an equal
orientation toward teaching and intellectual contributions
emphasis (32%). The scholarly orientation consists of 13
categories (BPB-1 to BPB-13) and lists schools as high,
medium, and low emphasis in Discipline-based scholarship, contributions to practice and learning and pedagogical research. Discipline-based Scholarship was high
emphasis for 24% of the AACSB-accredited schools, followed by equal emphasis on discipline-based scholarship
and contributions to practice (14%), equal emphasis on
discipline-based scholarship and contributions to practice
and learning, and pedagogical research (13%), and by
contributions to practice (12.9%).
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching provides a classification scheme of colleges and
universities.2 The largest percentage of AACSB-accredited
institutions, 34%, were classified as master’s colleges and
universities (larger programs), followed by research universities (high research activity; 19%), and research universities (very high research activity (15%). Aggregating to the
broad categories, most of the focal schools were master’s
colleges and universities (48%) or research universities and
doctoral/research universities (43%).
Table 2 shows correlations between all institutional variables. As expected, private schools charge significantly
higher tuition. Not surprisingly, operating budget per faculty member was higher in schools that charge higher inand out-of-state tuition.
TABLE 2
Correlation Table
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MFTBach
MFTMBA
Enrollment
NrFaculty
PhDFaculty
SFRatio
PerParticipate
Others
AACSB
Public
Mgen
MSpc
Doc
TuitionInUG
TuitionInMBA
TuitionOutUG
TuitionOutMBA
BudgetFac
CClassBroad
—
.51
¡.25
¡.19
¡.08
¡.04
.04
.12
¡.21
.13
¡.25
¡.24
¡.25
¡.16
¡.28
¡.24
¡.29
¡.29
.26
2
3
4
—
¡.12
—
¡.11
.44
—
¡.05
.05
.39
¡.02
.47
.35
.11
.03
.04
.12 ¡.08
.00
¡.11
.47
.26
.13
.26
.05
.14
.23
.14
¡.13
.36
.24
¡.16
.49
.32
¡.14 ¡.19
.01
¡.19
.05
.22
¡.18
.00
.17
¡.20
.26
.33
¡.15
.33
.17
.13 ¡.38 ¡.24
5
6
7
—
.12
¡.09
¡.03
¡.01
¡.06
.14
.16
.14
.10
.16
.19
.18
.12
¡.11
—
.12
¡.07
.17
.33
¡.05
¡.06
.10
¡.33
¡.20
¡.22
¡.05
¡.09
¡.07
—
.13
.02
.19
¡.11
¡.08
¡.01
¡.20
¡.15
¡.16
¡.07
¡.05
.03
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
—
.03
—
.13
.13
—
.01
.19
.00
—
.02
.38 ¡.01
.27
—
.05
.37
.18
.19
.34
—
¡.15 ¡.10 ¡.92
.03
.07 ¡.06
—
¡.20 ¡.05 ¡.59
.10
.18
.19
.72
—
¡.13
.03 ¡.69
.07
.15
.16
.86
.75
—
¡.10
.07 ¡.24
.13
.28
.39
.42
.86
.64
—
¡.09
.18 ¡.17
.19
.29
.44
.25
.62
.39
.66
—
¡.02 ¡.41 ¡.04 ¡.35 ¡.41 ¡.53 ¡.05 ¡.21 ¡.25 ¡.35 ¡.28
19
—
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
RESULTS
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
Simple Comparisons
There are numerous significant differences between
AACSB schools that use and do not use the MFT-B test for
their assessment purposes. Institutions that do not utilize
the MFT-B have significantly higher enrollment (1,717 vs.
1,105; t D 5.76; df D 426), more faculty (76 vs. 45; t D
4.60; df D 341), a slightly higher percent of faculty with
PhDs (85% vs. 83%; t D 1.65; df D 418), higher all types
of tuition (e.g., in-state undergraduate tuition $16,928 vs.
$13,027; t D 3.48; df D 431), budgets ($22,829,361 vs.
$9,690,531; t D 7.67; df D 382), and budgets per faculty
members ($277,141 vs. $191,298; t D 7.22; df D 372).
Most of the differences were highly significant suggesting
that AACSB-accredited institutions using the MFT-B significantly differ from the ones that do not. We observed no
significant differences between the student–faculty ratio
(21 vs. 20; t D 0.91; df D 408) and percentage of participating faculty (75% vs. 76%; t D 0.73; df D 366).
Our examination of the proportional measures confirmed
and further illuminated these differences with significantly
more public than private universities use the MFT-B (45%
vs. 33%; x2 D 5.2; df D 1) and significantly more schools
which are accredited only in business vs. business and
accounting use the MFT-B (50 vs. 27%; x2 D 24.1; df D 1).
In addition, AACSB-accredited undergraduate institutions
utilizing the MFT-B are more likely to offer only a general
master’s degree (81% vs. 38%; x2 D 27.9; df D 1) and not
any specific master’s degrees (33% vs. 58%; x2 D 25.3;
df D 1) or doctorates (21% vs. 49%; x2 D 29.2; df D 1) than
those institutions that do not utilize the MFT-B.
We found some significant differences between the four
geographical regions with the MFT-B used the most in the
South (48% of AACSB schools) and the least in the West
(31%). The four-sample test for equality of proportions was
rejected at the .05 significance level (x2 D 7.92; p D .048;
df D 3).
Most importantly, we found significant differences
between schools’ general orientations with the highest proportion of AACSB schools that use the MFT-B having
teaching as high emphasis: 58% of schools coded as BPA-1
and 56% of schools coded as BPA-6 using the MFT-B.
Only 13% of AACSB-accredited undergraduate business
institutions, with intellectual emphasis as a high emphasis
used the MFT-B. There were no schools with a BPA-4 category and one with BPA-3. Therefore, we removed these
categories from the sample due to not having enough observations. The null hypothesis of no differences between the
five BPA categories was rejected at 1% significance level
using the 5-sample test for equality of proportions
(x2 D 60.89, p D 1.9e-12; df D 4).
Similarly, we found significant differences while comparing proportions of schools using the MFT-B with respect
377
to their scholarly orientation with schools coded as BPB-9
(equal emphasis on discipline-based scholarship and learning & pedagogical research) using the MFT-B the most
(75%) and BPB-5 (learning and pedagogical research) and
BPB-1 (discipline-based scholarship) using the MFT-B the
least (25% and 29%, respectively).
Using the broad Carnegie Class 2005 classification, 77%
of baccalaureate colleges, 51% of master’s colleges and
universities, and only 27% of research universities used the
MFT-B test. The class 4 defined as other schools had only
four observations and we removed it from the analysis. We
rejected the null hypothesis of no differences between the
three Carnegie categories at a 1% significance level using
the 3-sample test for equality of proportions (x2 D 41.52,
p D 9.65e-10; df D 9).
In summary, the previous analysis of the data associated
with Research Question 1 indicates that AACSB-accredited
undergraduate business programs that utilize the MFT-B
tend to have the following characteristics as compared to
AACSB-accredited undergraduate business programs that
do not have the following:
lower enrollment,
less faculty,
a slightly lower percentage of PhD faculty,
charge lower tuition,
have lower operating budgets and lower budgets per
faculty member,
are predominantly public institutions,
are less likely to have PhD- or master’s-specific
programs,
are more likely to be AACSB-accredited in business.
only (as opposed to business and accounting),
tend to have a general teaching orientation, and
tend to have Carnegie classification of baccalaureate.
Estimation: Factors Affecting Probability That a School
Uses the MFT-B
To address Research Question 2, we ran a logistic regression to identify factors affecting the probability that an
AACSB institution uses the MFT-B. We estimated the following model:
Prob.MFT ¡ B D 1/ D F.Carnegie Classification;
General Orientation; Public; Others; Region/:
.1/
In the previous equation, the Carnegie Classification is a
set of dummy variables for Master and Baccalaureate
Carnegie Classifications. Institutions in the data set with a
Carnegie Classification of Research Universities were used
as a reference category (as before, Carnegie Other Category
was omitted due to too small sample size). The General
Orientation is a set of dummy variables for schools general
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
378
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
orientation. We chose General Orientation High Emphasis
on Intellectual Contributions (BPA-2) as a reference category (as before, we omitted BPA-3 and BPA-4 due to
too small sample size). In Equation 1, Public is a dummy
variable that takes a value of one when an institution is
public and zero when private and Others variable is a
percentage of other schools in a given state that utilize
the MFT-B (not including itself). Finally, Region is a set
of dummy variables that control for schools’ geographical location. For Region, West was chosen as a reference
category.
Because Carnegie Classification and General Orientation
correlate (Table 2) with many other characteristics (fulltime enrollment, number of full-time faculty, percent of
full-time faculty with doctoral degrees, operating budget,
and tuition), these variables were used to control for the
type of the school. Because the dependent variable (use of
MFT-B) was binary, we estimated the model using a logistic regression. We report results in Table 3. Two models
are presented where Model 1 includes and Model 2
excludes regional dummies.
Study results indicate that schools with a Carnegie
Classification of Baccalaureate are much more likely to
adopt the MFT-B than research universities. Schools
with high emphasis on teaching contributions (BPA-1,
BPA-5, and BPA-6) are much more likely to use the
MFT-B as compared to schools with high emphasis on
intellectual contributions (BPA-2). Public schools were
more likely to use the MFT-B than private institutions.
Holding all other variables constant, the odds that a public university will use the MFT-B, over the odds that a
private university would, is 1.95 (exp(0.67)). In other
words, in terms of percentage change, the odds that a
public
institution
with
an
AACSB-accredited
undergraduate business program would utilize the MFTB are 95% higher than for an otherwise similarly situated
private institution. We found no effect for regional differences or the percentage of other schools using the MFTB in the focal state.
Due to the very substantial difference between the percentages of public and private schools using the MFT-B,
and because many other variables are heavily correlated
with this type of school, we ran separate regressions for
public and private schools. As before, we used logistic
regression for the model estimates. We report the results in
Table 4.
For public schools, most of the results are similar to the
regression for all schools reported in Table 4. As before,
Baccalaureate Carnegie Class classification public schools
and schools with high emphasis on teaching contributions
are much more likely to adopt the MFT-B. However, for
public schools, it is more likely that a school would use the
MFT-B if there were high percentages of other schools in
the state using the MFT-B. Schools located in the Midwest
are more likely to use the MFT-B than schools in the West.
Holding all other variables constant, for every 1% increase
in the number of other schools that use the MFT-B in a
given state, the odds of the focal school using the MFT-B
increases by a factor of 1.7 (exp(0.01)): there is a 7%
increase in the probability of using the MFT-B for every
1% increase in other universities in the state using the
MFT-B.
The full regression for private schools was not significant. Therefore, using backward elimination, we performed
a limited regression. We report results in Table 4, indicating that private baccalaureate and master’s Carnegie class
classification schools are more likely to use MFT-B than
research universities.
TABLE 3
Logistic Regression (All Undergraduate Schools)
Model 1
Model 2
Variable
Coefficient
Wald z
p
Coefficient
Wald z
p
(Intercept)
Public
Carnegie Master
Carnegie Baccalaureate
BPA-1: Teaching/intellectual
BPA-5: Teaching/intellectual
BPA-6: Teaching/equal
BPA-7: All equal
Others
NE
MW
South
AIC
LogL
n
¡3.28
0.67
0.29
1.79
2.04
0.81
1.66
¡0.09
0.01
0.43
0.53
0.56
528.03
¡252.014
458
¡5.59
2.57
1.05
3.25
4.16
1.73
2.71
¡0.07
1.52
1.12
1.44
1.61
.000**
.010*
.296
.001**
.000**
.084y
.007**
.944
.129
.263
.151
.109
¡2.49
0.72
0.28
1.75
2.02
0.83
1.62
¡0.19
¡5.43
2.96
1.02
3.22
4.21
1.83
2.67
¡0.15
.000**
.003**
.307
.001**
.000**
.068y
.008**
.879
y
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
534.01
¡259.004
458
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
379
TABLE 4
Logistic Regression for Public and Private Schools
Model 1 public
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
Variable
Coefficient
(Intercept)
Carnegie Master
Carnegie Baccalaureate
BPA-1: Teaching/intellectual
BPA-5: Teach and intellectual
BPA-6: Teaching/equal
BPA-7: All equal
Others
NE
MW
South
AIC
LogL
n
¡3.23
0.33
2.43
2.24
0.95
2.60
0.39
0.01
0.54
0.82
0.65
Model 2 public
Wald z
p
Coefficient
¡5.15
0.99
2.82
3.89
1.74
3.27
0.26
2.16
1.06
1.92
1.60
.000**
.323
.005**
.000**
.081y
.001**
.795
.031*
.289
.055y
.110
368.49
¡173.25
326
¡2.02
0.30
2.29
2.20
1.02
2.40
0.33
378.87
¡182.44
326
Private schools
Wald z
p
Coefficient
Wald z
p
¡4.23
0.96
2.72
3.94
1.93
3.13
0.21
.000**
.335
.007**
.000**
.053y
.002**
.830
¡1.24
0.76
1.65
¡3.62
1.79
2.25
.000**
.073y
.024*
162.12
¡78.058
142
y
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Prediction
From the previous estimation, to find a probability, p, that a
given AACSB institution would use the MFT-B, any school
(public or private) can use the following model (from
Table 3 results):
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 3:23 C 0:33 CMaster C 2:43
CBacc C 2:24 BPA1
C 0:95 BPA5 C 2:60 BPA6
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 3:28 C 0:67 Public C 0:29
CMaster C 1:79 CBacc
C 2:04 BPA1 C 0:81 BPA5 C 1:66
BPA6 ¡ 0:09 BPA7 C 0:01 Others
C 0:43 NE C 0:53 MW C 0:56 S: .2/
For example, a probability that a public school with a
research universities Carnegie Classification, BPA1 General Orientation, in a Western state where all other
AACSB-accredited universities in the state use the MFT-B
would be 56%—the result obtained by solving for p in the
following equation:
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 3:28 C 0:67 1 C 0:29 0
C 1:79 0 C 2:04 1
C 0:81 0 C 1:66 0 ¡ 0:09 0
C 0:01 100 C 0:43 0
C 0:53 0 C 0:56 0 D 0:264:
Estimation that is more precise can be derived from the
specific model for private or public schools. Therefore, the
following model can be used for public schools (Table 4,
Model 1):
¡ 0:39 BPA7 C 0:01 Others
C 0:54 NE C 0:82 MW C 0:65 S: .4/
For the school described previously, this probability
would be 59.5%, while the same school with a Master’s
Carnegie Classification would be 67%, and Baccalaureate
would be 94%.
Alternatively, the model without geographical location
can be used (Table 4, Model 2):
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 2:02 C 0:30 CMaster C 2:29 CBacc
C 2:20 BPA1 C 1:02 BPA5
C 2:40 BPA6 C 0:33 BPA7:
.5/
.3/
If this school had a Master’s Carnegie Classification
instead, the probability would rise to 63%. If this school
had Baccalaureate Carnegie Classification, the probability
would be 89%. If those using this model desire not to
include geographical information, they should apply coefficients reported in Table 3, Model 2.
Using this equation, the probability for the previous
school is 54.6%, while the same school with Master’s Carnegie Classification would be 62%, and Baccalaureate 92%.
For a private school, using the results reported in
Table 4, the probability that a Research Carnegie University uses the MFT-B would be 22%, Master’s 38%, and
Baccalaureate 60%.
380
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
DISCUSSION
As a condition of gaining and sustaining external accreditation by the AACSB, business programs are currently
required to provide a mission statement which specifies
what goals the institution seeks to accomplish with their
students and AOL assessments indicating the extent to
which these goals were accomplished. As previously noted,
41% of AACSB-accredited undergraduate programs utilize
the MFT-B as a part of their satisfaction of their AOL.
The ETS provides tables that can be used to compare a
local institutional mean score to those of all other institutions also using the MFT-B. The meaningfulness and utility
of this comparison may in fact be quite limited for two reasons (a) not all institutions with undergraduate business
programs utilize the MFT-B and (b) there is no reason to
believe that those schools that do utilize the MFT-B are representative of all undergraduate programs. Green et al.
(2014) cited this lack of direct and meaningful comparability as a disadvantage associated with the use of the MFT-B.
Our study provides an empirical measurement of the extent
four-year undergraduate business programs accredited by
the AACSB utilize the MFT-B, and a description of the
characteristics of those programs.
Our analysis of the characteristics of the AACSBaccredited undergraduate institutions utilizing the MFT-B
provides at least some illumination on the characteristics of
the institutions that appear in the ETS comparative tables.
First, we compared the characteristics of accredited programs that use and do not use the MFT-B. Our results show
that schools that are public, classified as Baccalaureate Carnegie Class Classification, and that put high emphasis on
teaching contributions (BPA-1, BPA-5, and BPA-6) are
much more likely to use the MFT-B than private universities and research universities with high emphasis on intellectual contributions (BPA-2).
Second, in response to Research Question 2 we provide a
model that institutions could use to assist in determining
how comparable the schools in the ETS comparison set are
to their own institution, perhaps assisting in the decision of
whether or not to utilize the MFT-B. The higher the probability received from the model is, the more meaningful the
comparison with other schools is. For example, for a public
school with a research universities Carnegie Classification,
BPA1 General Orientation, in a W state where all other
AACSB-accredited universities in the state use the MFT-B,
the probability that a similar school (same Carnegie Classification and General Orientation) uses the MFT-B is 51%.
Programs and institutions may also find it useful to compare
their characteristics to other schools either using or not
using the MFT-B.
Additional studies examining the extent of utilization
and the characteristics of non–AACSB-accredited institutions utilizing the MFT-B could provide additional insights
into comparability across programs. Presently the ETS
provides the opportunity for institutions utilizing the MFTB to order a custom comparative data report that they can
use to compare a local score to a reference group of 10 or
more other selected institutions. Certainly, this provides
institutions, if they have access to the necessary metrics,
with at least a limited opportunity to create a more meaningful comparison than the use of the overall mean scores
provided by ETS. ETS should be encouraged to provide the
opportunity for MFT-B users to create more robust custom
comparison sets through the inclusion of accreditation status and other publically available institutional characteristics such as those used in our study. To do so would
make the MFT-B a more meaningful assessment of learning
at the local level and eminently more attractive for use at
the national level.
NOTES
1. See https://datadirect.aacsb.edu/public/misc/clients/
aacsb/help_orientation_codes.cfm?
2. See http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/
descriptions/basic.php
REFERENCES
Allen, J. S., & Bycio, P. (1997). An evaluation of the Educational Testing
Service Major Field Achievement Test in Business. Journal of Accounting Education, 15, 503–514.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2013).
Global listing. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/
accredited-members/global-listing.aspx
Bagamery, B. D., Lasik, J. J., & Nixon, D. R. (2005). Determinants of success on the ETS Business Major Field Exam for students in an undergraduate multisite regional university business program. Journal of
Education for Business, 81, 55–63.
Barboza, G. A., & Pesek, J. (2012). Linking course-embedded assessment
measures and performance on the Educational Testing Service Major
Field Test in Business. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 102–111.
Bean, D. F., & Bernardi, R. A. (2002). Performance on the Major Field
Test in Business: The explanatory power of SAT scores and gender.
Journal of Private Enterprise, 17, 172–178.
Benham, H. C., Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., & Brown, F. W. (2012). Software
applications course as an early indicator of academic performance.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 19, 1–16.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., & Brown, F. W. (2012). The impact of intellectual
heterogeneity on academic performance in business education. Research
in Higher Education Journal, 16, 1–15.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., & Brown, F. W. (2013). Differential gender performance on the Major Field Test–Business. Journal of Education for Business, 88, 159–166.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., Brown, F. W., & Semenik, R. J. (2012a). Is higher
better? Determinants and comparisons of performance on the Major
Field Test–Business. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 159–169.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., Brown, F. W., & Semenik, R. J. (2012b). Interpreting standardized assessment test scores and setting performance goals in
the context of student characteristics: The case of the Major Field Test
in Business. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 7–13.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
Black, H. T., & Duhon, D. L. (2003). Evaluating and improving student
achievement in business programs: The effective use of standardized
assessment tests. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 90–98.
Bush, H. F., Duncan, F. H., Sexton, E. A., & West, C. T. (2008).
Using the Major Field Test-Business as an assessment tool and
impetus for program improvement: Fifteen years of experience at
Virginia Military Institute. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 5, 75–88.
Bycio, P., & Allen, J. S. (2007). Factors associated with performance
on the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Major Field Achievement
Test in Business (MFT-B). Journal of Education for Business, 82,
196–201.
Contreras, S., Badua, F., Chen, J. S., & Adrian, M. (2011). Documenting
and explaining Major Field Test results among undergraduate students.
Journal of Education for Business, 86, 64–70.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2013a). About ETS Major Field Test.
Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/mft/about.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2013b). Comparative data reports.
Overview of the comparative data guide. Retrieved from http://www.ets.
org/mft/scores/compare_data.
Gerlich, R. N., & Sollosy, M. (2009). Evaluating the assessment outcomes
in the principles of marketing course. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 127–135.
Green, J. J., Stone, C. C., & Zegeye, A. (2014). The Major Field Test in
Business: A solution to the problem of assurance of learning assessment? Journal of Education for Business, 89, 20–26.
Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making the grade? Journal of Education for Business, 82, 189–195.
Mason, P. M., Coleman, B. J., Steagall, J. W., Gallo, A. A., & Fabritius, M.
M. (2011). The use of the ETS Major Field Test for assurance of
381
business content learning: Assurance of waste? Journal of Education for
Business, 86, 71–77.
McLaughlin, P., & White, J. T. (2007). Major Field Achievement Test in
Business—Guidelines for improved outcome scores—Part I. College
Teaching Methods and Styles Journal, 3(2), 11–20.
Mirchandani, D., Lynch, R., & Hamilton, D. (2001). Using the ETS Major
Field Test in Business: Implications for assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 51–55.
Pringle, C., & Michel, M. (2006). Assessment practices in AACSB-accredited business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 202–211.
Rook, S. P., & Tanyel, F. I. (2009). Value-added assessment using the
Major Field Test in Business. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 87–94.
Settlage, D. M., & Settlage, L. A. (2011). A statistical framework for
assessment using the ETS Major Field Test in Business. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 274–278.
Smith, L. J., Clements, C., & Olson, J. E. (2010). Local versus standardized
content assessment: Some management implications, or why bother?
Journal of Education for Business, 85, 249–257.
Terry, N., Mills, L., Rosa, D., & Sollosy, M. (2009). Do online students
make the grade on the Business Major Field ETS exam? Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 109–118.
Wilson, P. H. (2008). A protocol for analyzing the Major Field Test results.
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 33–45.
Word, W. R., & Rook, S. P. (2012). Analyzing Major Field Test in Business assessment results. Journal of Business Administration Online, 12,
1–11.
Zeis, C., Waronska, A., & Fuller, R. (2009). Value-added program assessment using nationally standardized tests: Insights into internal validity
issues. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 9, 114–128.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
As Compared to What? Characteristics of the
AACSB Institutions That Utilize the Major Field Test
in Business
Agnieszka Bielinska-Kwapisz & F. William Brown
To cite this article: Agnieszka Bielinska-Kwapisz & F. William Brown (2014) As Compared to
What? Characteristics of the AACSB Institutions That Utilize the Major Field Test in Business,
Journal of Education for Business, 89:7, 373-381, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.916648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.916648
Published online: 29 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 38
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:47
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 373–381, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.916648
As Compared to What? Characteristics
of the AACSB Institutions That Utilize the Major
Field Test in Business
Agnieszka Bielinska-Kwapisz and F. William Brown
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
The publishers of the Major Field Test in Business (MFT-B), an assessment of learning
instrument, provide a list of institutions utilizing the instrument and a table that allows for
comparison of local MFT-B mean scores to those of other institutions. The absence of
information regarding the comparison group’s characteristics limits the validity of that
comparison. This study provides a comparison of the institutions accredited by the
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International, those that use the
MFT-B and those accredited institutions that do not, and an estimation of the probability that
a school will use the MFT-B for assessment purposes.
Keywords: accreditation, assessment, characteristics, comparison, Major Field Test in
Business, MFT, prediction
The Major Field Test in Business (MFT-B) is a widely used
assessment of learning (AOL) instrument intended for use
in undergraduate business programs. The Educational Testing Service (ETS), publisher of the MFT-B, describes the
instrument as going beyond an assessment of factual knowledge regarding business by evaluating senior students’ ability to analyze and solve problems, understand relationships,
and interpret material from their major field of study (ETS,
2013a). The 120 multiple-choice questions in the MFT-B
cover topics in nine subject areas: accounting, economics,
management, quantitative business analysis, finance, marketing, legal and social environment, information systems,
and international issues. This value proposition has attracted
considerable attention among undergraduate business institutions in the United States. The ETS reports that from September 2010 to June 2012, 585 institutions in the United
States utilized the MFT-B in their assessment of their business students’ learning (ETS, 2013a).
Given its wide usage, it is not surprising that the MFT-B
has attracted considerable attention from researchers. To
date, almost all of that attention has been directed toward
efforts to identify student performance determinants.
Correspondence should be addressed to F. William Brown, Montana
State University, Jake Jabs College of Business and Entrepreneurship,
P.O. Box 173040, Bozeman, MT 59717–3040, USA. E-mail:
billbrown@montana.edu
Standardized test scores (ACT/SAT), grade point averages
(GPA), major field of study, and gender have been consistently cited as determinative covariates (e.g., Allen & Bycio,
1997; Bagamery, Lasik, & Nixon, 2005; Barboza & Pesek,
2012; Bean & Bernardi, 2002; Benham, Bielinska-Kwapisz,
& Brown, 2012; Bielinska-Kwapisz, Brown, & Semenik,
2012a, 2012b; Black & Duhon, 2003; Bycio & Allen; 2007;
Contreras, Badua, Chen, & Adrian, 2011; Gerlich & Sollosy,
2009; Mason, Coleman, Steagall, Gallo, & Fabritius, 2011;
Mirchandani, Lynch, & Hamilton, 2001; Rook & Tanyel,
2009; Settlage & Settlage, 2011; Terry, Mills, Rosa, & Sollosy, 2009; Zeis, Waronska, & Fuller, 2009). All of these
studies use a specific institution’s data in order to gain
insight into their students’ performance. While these efforts
can be helpful in understanding local performance, Bielinska-Kwapisz et al. (2012a) and others (e.g., Black & Duhon,
2003; Bycio & Allen; 2007; Contreras et al., 2009; Green,
Stone, & Zegeye, 2014) have pointed out that when interpreting an MFT-B institutional mean, the referent
institution’s characteristics need to be taken into account in
order to make that interpretation meaningful.
Following administration of the MFT-B, the ETS generates a local institutional mean total 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
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
374
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
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). The
ETS enables these comparisons by providing data tables
that supply scaled scores and percentiles for institutional
means drawn directly from all administrations of the MFTB during a focal period (ETS, 2013b). These tables allow
for the comparison of school performance with all other
domestic schools administering the MFT-B during the
same period. An examination of the table permits a determination as to how many institutions in the data had mean
scores lower than the local score. However, this comparison
is not meaningful if AACSB schools that do use MFT-B are
not a random sample of all AACSB schools. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to determine if there are significant differences between programs that do and do not use
MFT-B for assessment purposes and what are the characteristics of schools that are most likely to adopt MFT-B. If significant differences between these programs exist, then any
comparison of local MFT-B scores to the Institutional
Means Score Distribution, which ETS provides, has significant limitations. Smith, Clements, and Olson (2010),
describing advantages of the MFT-B test, stated, “the most
frequently cited advantage is the ability to compare scores
across national norms. . . . If a school’s percentile ratings
are good, recruiters and public relations personnel may use
those results in promotional materials to substantiate the
quality of the college” (p. 251). However, Green et al.
(2014) had a very different view and opined that the
unknown nature of the comparison group constituted a
major drawback of the MFT-B assessment: “A student’s
scaled score depends on his/her performance relative to that
of all students who took the test. Who are these students?”
(p. 22). They pointed out that “even choosing to compare
an institution’s scores only against others accredited by or
members of an accrediting agency is problematic as there
are considerable quality differences across those
institutions” (Green et al., 2014, p. 7). This general problem
is recognized by ETS, which notes that MFT-B score distributions should be comparative rather than normative,
“because the institutions included in the data do not represent proportionally the various types of higher education
institutions” (ETS, 2013a, p. 5).
Unlike widely taken individual aptitude tests (e.g., SAT,
ACT, GRE, GMAT), there is no reason to believe, in the
case of the MFT-B, that the comparison scores necessarily
come from typical or similarly situated undergraduate business programs. At present, we know little about the schools
that use MFT-B assessment and there has not been any systematic examination to determine if the schools in the comparison group are representative of undergraduate business
schools in general, or the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International accredited schools specifically. As is more completely explained
in the Data section, in 2011–2012 there were 477 AACSBaccredited undergraduate business programs in the United
States. From September 2010 to June 2012, 585 institutions
utilized the MFT-B but only 196 of these (34%) were
AACSB-accredited. Institutions pointing to their MFT-B
scores and percentile rankings as evidence that their program is fulfilling or making progress toward its stated mission, or that its students have a particular rank in business
knowledge as compared to all other undergraduates, are in
fact utilizing a referent group in which a minority (one
third) have AACSB accreditation status. Thus, they run the
risk of over- or misstating the true nature of their rankings.
Our study seeks to begin closing this gap in the literature
by providing the first systematic, detailed description of
schools that use MFT-B assessment and comparing them to
schools that do not use MFT-B. The MFT-B is often a cornerstone of institutional AOL programs and the results play
an important role in curricular and accreditation decisions.
A major part of our study’s analysis is a data-based description of MFT-B utilization by AACSB-accredited business
schools and the characteristics of those schools. Our study
also includes a probability estimate for whether or not a
given school will use the MFT-B for assessment purposes.
As of 2013, the base price for the online version of the
exam was $25 per test ($24 for more than 100 tests) and the
paper-based version price was $27 each ($26 for more than
100 tests; Educational Testing Service, 2013a). Our study’s
results should be of value because the test is relatively
expensive and utilized for a significant purpose, and appropriate interpretation of scores is important.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study is informed and inspired by the following factors:
the widespread use of the MFT-B,
the demonstrated interest of institutions utilizing the
MFT-B to comparing their local scores to those of
other institutions and national means,
the almost complete lack of any information regarding the MFT-B comparison group provided by the
ETS, and
the critical importance of an understanding the characteristics of the referent group in order to make comparisons to local scores useful and meaningful.
The following two research questions were used to guide
this study:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): Are AACSB-accredited institutions using the MFT-B significantly different than
the ones that do not use the MFT-B?
RQ2: What factors affect the probability that a school will
adopt the MFT-B?
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
375
performances “across institutions are invalid because the
test results are significantly driven by individual student
characteristics of an unknown (and unknowable) group
of students enrolled at diverse nonrandom business
schools” (p. 24).
In order to compare schools that use and do not use
MFT-B we use the following institutional variables: school
general and scholarly orientation (as defined by the
AACSB), Carnegie Class classification, public or private
institution, enrollment, number of full time faculty, percent
of full time faculty with doctoral degrees, number of full
time equivalent faculty, student–faculty ratio, percent of
participating faculty, geographical region, percent of other
schools in the state that use the MFT-B test, types of degree
offered, tuition, and budget data (see Table 1).
Answers to these questions will help institutions to
better understand both the potential benefits and limitations associated with the comparison of their local scores
to the ETS provided means. Results should also be helpful to institutions contemplating use of the MFT-B as it
will provide, for the first time, some systematic analysis
to accompany heretofore entirely intuitive assumptions
regarding the characteristics of referent institutions, particularly those holding AACSB accreditation. Finally, the
results of this study will provide the first empirical contributions to an emerging discussion regarding the validity of using the MFT-B as an assessment tool. Green
et al. (2014) opined that comparisons of MFTB
METHOD
Participants
We matched information regarding all the available characteristics of U.S. AACSB-accredited institutions (AACSB,
2013) with the ETS list of schools that use the MFT-B
(2013b). The focus of our study is limited to data from institutions that offer undergraduate business degrees.
Data
Previous studies utilized surveys to estimate the percentage
of AACSB institutions utilizing the MFT-B. Martell (2007)
estimated that 46% of AACSB-accredited schools used the
MFT-B as an assessment method, while Pringle and Michel
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for Schools With Undergraduate Programs (Eliminates 15 Schools That Do Not Offer Undergraduate Education)
Variable
Definition
M
Median
SD
Minimum
Maximum
n
AACSB
AACSB accredited in: Business D 0
Business and Accounting D 1
School General Orientation from 1 to 7
School Scholarly Orientation from 1 to 13
2005 Carnegie Class broad classification
Full time undergraduate enrollment
Number of full time faculty
Percent of full time faculty with doctoral degrees
Number of full time equivalent faculty (FT C PT)
Student/faculty ratio undergraduate
% of participating faculty
% of other schools in the state
that use MFT Bachelor
NE D 1
MW D 1
South D 1
West D 1
Public D 1
Private D 0
General master’s degree D 1
(MBA)
Specific master’s degree D 1
Doctoral degree D 1
No program D 1
Tuition and fees—Undergrad: In-state
Tuition and fees—MBA: In-state
Tuition and fees—Undergrad: Out-of-state
Tuition and fees—MBA: Out-of-state
Operating budget
Budget/NrFaculty
0.35
0
0.48
0
1
477
2.91
6.12
1.65
1465.38
63.34
84.26
70.69
20.76
75.80
39.86
2
6
2
1073
51
84.6
58.57
19.56
75.68
40
2.06
4.39
0.65
1182.86
83.62
10.75
45.54
10.02
13.14
20.99
1
1
1
84
10
37
10.75
2.52
7.07
0
7
13
4
8498
1641
179.54
315
93.7
100
100
452
452
473
428
448
438
449
427
425
473
0.21
0.22
0.40
0.16
0.70
0
0
0
0
1
0.41
0.41
0.49
0.37
0.46
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
477
477
477
476
477
0.91
1
0.29
0
1
451
0.65
0.27
1
0
0.48
0.44
0
0
1
1
451
451
$15,306
$29,757
$22,896
$41,009
$17,379,398
$241,453
$8,933
$22,362
$20,205
$36,782
$9,780,006
$197,215
$12,157
$21,393
$9,046
$21,055
$21,148,748
$144,587
0
0
0
0
$149,310
$8,783
$45,760
$109,600
$45,760
$11,1150
$188,680,970
$1,338,163
$445
$396
$440
$392
$446
$445
BPA
BPB
CClassBroad
Enrollment
NrFaculty
PhDFaculty
FTE
SFRatio
PerParticipate
Others
NE
MW
S
W
Public
MGen
MSpc
Doc
TuitionInUG
TuitionInMBA
TuitionOutUG
TuitionOutMBA
Budget
BudgetFac
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
376
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
(2006) estimated that 30% of AACSB-accredited business
schools used the MFT-B. The AACSB reports that in
2011–2012 there were 477 U.S. AACSB-accredited
schools offering undergraduate business degrees (65% of
which were accredited in business and 35% in both business
and accounting; AACSB, (2013). We summarize definitions and descriptive statistics regarding these institutions
in Table 1. Of the 477 institutions that held an accreditation
of their undergraduate business program during 2011–
2012, 41% (n D 196) administered the MFT-B during the
most recent reporting period.
Amongst the AACSB-accredited institutions 70%
were public, 91% offered master’s general degrees, 65%
offered master’s specific degrees, and 27% offered doctoral degrees. The mean undergraduate in-state tuition
was $15,306, with a median of $8,933. The mean outof-state tuition was $22,897, with a median of $20,206.
The mean institutional operating budget was
$17,379,398 with a median of $9,780,006 and ranged
from $149,310 to $188,680,970. The mean budget per
faculty member was $241,453. The mean enrollment
was 1,465 students, with 63 full time faculty members
and 21:1 student-to-faculty ratio. On average, 84% of
the full time faculty had a PhD and 76% were participating faculty.
We divided the states in which the AACSB-accredited
institutions were located into regions according to the U.S.
Census Bureau classification. An examination of that distribution reveals that 40% of the schools were located in the
South (S), 22% in the Midwest (MW), 21% in the Northeast
(NE), and 16% in the West (W). The AACSB categorizes
schools according to their general and scholarly
orientation.1
The general orientation consists of seven categories
(Business Priority Category A [BPA]-1–7) and lists
schools with high, medium, and low emphasis in teaching, intellectual contributions, and service. Teaching was
the high emphasis of almost half of the AACSB-accredited schools (46%), followed by institutions with an equal
orientation toward teaching and intellectual contributions
emphasis (32%). The scholarly orientation consists of 13
categories (BPB-1 to BPB-13) and lists schools as high,
medium, and low emphasis in Discipline-based scholarship, contributions to practice and learning and pedagogical research. Discipline-based Scholarship was high
emphasis for 24% of the AACSB-accredited schools, followed by equal emphasis on discipline-based scholarship
and contributions to practice (14%), equal emphasis on
discipline-based scholarship and contributions to practice
and learning, and pedagogical research (13%), and by
contributions to practice (12.9%).
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching provides a classification scheme of colleges and
universities.2 The largest percentage of AACSB-accredited
institutions, 34%, were classified as master’s colleges and
universities (larger programs), followed by research universities (high research activity; 19%), and research universities (very high research activity (15%). Aggregating to the
broad categories, most of the focal schools were master’s
colleges and universities (48%) or research universities and
doctoral/research universities (43%).
Table 2 shows correlations between all institutional variables. As expected, private schools charge significantly
higher tuition. Not surprisingly, operating budget per faculty member was higher in schools that charge higher inand out-of-state tuition.
TABLE 2
Correlation Table
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MFTBach
MFTMBA
Enrollment
NrFaculty
PhDFaculty
SFRatio
PerParticipate
Others
AACSB
Public
Mgen
MSpc
Doc
TuitionInUG
TuitionInMBA
TuitionOutUG
TuitionOutMBA
BudgetFac
CClassBroad
—
.51
¡.25
¡.19
¡.08
¡.04
.04
.12
¡.21
.13
¡.25
¡.24
¡.25
¡.16
¡.28
¡.24
¡.29
¡.29
.26
2
3
4
—
¡.12
—
¡.11
.44
—
¡.05
.05
.39
¡.02
.47
.35
.11
.03
.04
.12 ¡.08
.00
¡.11
.47
.26
.13
.26
.05
.14
.23
.14
¡.13
.36
.24
¡.16
.49
.32
¡.14 ¡.19
.01
¡.19
.05
.22
¡.18
.00
.17
¡.20
.26
.33
¡.15
.33
.17
.13 ¡.38 ¡.24
5
6
7
—
.12
¡.09
¡.03
¡.01
¡.06
.14
.16
.14
.10
.16
.19
.18
.12
¡.11
—
.12
¡.07
.17
.33
¡.05
¡.06
.10
¡.33
¡.20
¡.22
¡.05
¡.09
¡.07
—
.13
.02
.19
¡.11
¡.08
¡.01
¡.20
¡.15
¡.16
¡.07
¡.05
.03
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
—
.03
—
.13
.13
—
.01
.19
.00
—
.02
.38 ¡.01
.27
—
.05
.37
.18
.19
.34
—
¡.15 ¡.10 ¡.92
.03
.07 ¡.06
—
¡.20 ¡.05 ¡.59
.10
.18
.19
.72
—
¡.13
.03 ¡.69
.07
.15
.16
.86
.75
—
¡.10
.07 ¡.24
.13
.28
.39
.42
.86
.64
—
¡.09
.18 ¡.17
.19
.29
.44
.25
.62
.39
.66
—
¡.02 ¡.41 ¡.04 ¡.35 ¡.41 ¡.53 ¡.05 ¡.21 ¡.25 ¡.35 ¡.28
19
—
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
RESULTS
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
Simple Comparisons
There are numerous significant differences between
AACSB schools that use and do not use the MFT-B test for
their assessment purposes. Institutions that do not utilize
the MFT-B have significantly higher enrollment (1,717 vs.
1,105; t D 5.76; df D 426), more faculty (76 vs. 45; t D
4.60; df D 341), a slightly higher percent of faculty with
PhDs (85% vs. 83%; t D 1.65; df D 418), higher all types
of tuition (e.g., in-state undergraduate tuition $16,928 vs.
$13,027; t D 3.48; df D 431), budgets ($22,829,361 vs.
$9,690,531; t D 7.67; df D 382), and budgets per faculty
members ($277,141 vs. $191,298; t D 7.22; df D 372).
Most of the differences were highly significant suggesting
that AACSB-accredited institutions using the MFT-B significantly differ from the ones that do not. We observed no
significant differences between the student–faculty ratio
(21 vs. 20; t D 0.91; df D 408) and percentage of participating faculty (75% vs. 76%; t D 0.73; df D 366).
Our examination of the proportional measures confirmed
and further illuminated these differences with significantly
more public than private universities use the MFT-B (45%
vs. 33%; x2 D 5.2; df D 1) and significantly more schools
which are accredited only in business vs. business and
accounting use the MFT-B (50 vs. 27%; x2 D 24.1; df D 1).
In addition, AACSB-accredited undergraduate institutions
utilizing the MFT-B are more likely to offer only a general
master’s degree (81% vs. 38%; x2 D 27.9; df D 1) and not
any specific master’s degrees (33% vs. 58%; x2 D 25.3;
df D 1) or doctorates (21% vs. 49%; x2 D 29.2; df D 1) than
those institutions that do not utilize the MFT-B.
We found some significant differences between the four
geographical regions with the MFT-B used the most in the
South (48% of AACSB schools) and the least in the West
(31%). The four-sample test for equality of proportions was
rejected at the .05 significance level (x2 D 7.92; p D .048;
df D 3).
Most importantly, we found significant differences
between schools’ general orientations with the highest proportion of AACSB schools that use the MFT-B having
teaching as high emphasis: 58% of schools coded as BPA-1
and 56% of schools coded as BPA-6 using the MFT-B.
Only 13% of AACSB-accredited undergraduate business
institutions, with intellectual emphasis as a high emphasis
used the MFT-B. There were no schools with a BPA-4 category and one with BPA-3. Therefore, we removed these
categories from the sample due to not having enough observations. The null hypothesis of no differences between the
five BPA categories was rejected at 1% significance level
using the 5-sample test for equality of proportions
(x2 D 60.89, p D 1.9e-12; df D 4).
Similarly, we found significant differences while comparing proportions of schools using the MFT-B with respect
377
to their scholarly orientation with schools coded as BPB-9
(equal emphasis on discipline-based scholarship and learning & pedagogical research) using the MFT-B the most
(75%) and BPB-5 (learning and pedagogical research) and
BPB-1 (discipline-based scholarship) using the MFT-B the
least (25% and 29%, respectively).
Using the broad Carnegie Class 2005 classification, 77%
of baccalaureate colleges, 51% of master’s colleges and
universities, and only 27% of research universities used the
MFT-B test. The class 4 defined as other schools had only
four observations and we removed it from the analysis. We
rejected the null hypothesis of no differences between the
three Carnegie categories at a 1% significance level using
the 3-sample test for equality of proportions (x2 D 41.52,
p D 9.65e-10; df D 9).
In summary, the previous analysis of the data associated
with Research Question 1 indicates that AACSB-accredited
undergraduate business programs that utilize the MFT-B
tend to have the following characteristics as compared to
AACSB-accredited undergraduate business programs that
do not have the following:
lower enrollment,
less faculty,
a slightly lower percentage of PhD faculty,
charge lower tuition,
have lower operating budgets and lower budgets per
faculty member,
are predominantly public institutions,
are less likely to have PhD- or master’s-specific
programs,
are more likely to be AACSB-accredited in business.
only (as opposed to business and accounting),
tend to have a general teaching orientation, and
tend to have Carnegie classification of baccalaureate.
Estimation: Factors Affecting Probability That a School
Uses the MFT-B
To address Research Question 2, we ran a logistic regression to identify factors affecting the probability that an
AACSB institution uses the MFT-B. We estimated the following model:
Prob.MFT ¡ B D 1/ D F.Carnegie Classification;
General Orientation; Public; Others; Region/:
.1/
In the previous equation, the Carnegie Classification is a
set of dummy variables for Master and Baccalaureate
Carnegie Classifications. Institutions in the data set with a
Carnegie Classification of Research Universities were used
as a reference category (as before, Carnegie Other Category
was omitted due to too small sample size). The General
Orientation is a set of dummy variables for schools general
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
378
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
orientation. We chose General Orientation High Emphasis
on Intellectual Contributions (BPA-2) as a reference category (as before, we omitted BPA-3 and BPA-4 due to
too small sample size). In Equation 1, Public is a dummy
variable that takes a value of one when an institution is
public and zero when private and Others variable is a
percentage of other schools in a given state that utilize
the MFT-B (not including itself). Finally, Region is a set
of dummy variables that control for schools’ geographical location. For Region, West was chosen as a reference
category.
Because Carnegie Classification and General Orientation
correlate (Table 2) with many other characteristics (fulltime enrollment, number of full-time faculty, percent of
full-time faculty with doctoral degrees, operating budget,
and tuition), these variables were used to control for the
type of the school. Because the dependent variable (use of
MFT-B) was binary, we estimated the model using a logistic regression. We report results in Table 3. Two models
are presented where Model 1 includes and Model 2
excludes regional dummies.
Study results indicate that schools with a Carnegie
Classification of Baccalaureate are much more likely to
adopt the MFT-B than research universities. Schools
with high emphasis on teaching contributions (BPA-1,
BPA-5, and BPA-6) are much more likely to use the
MFT-B as compared to schools with high emphasis on
intellectual contributions (BPA-2). Public schools were
more likely to use the MFT-B than private institutions.
Holding all other variables constant, the odds that a public university will use the MFT-B, over the odds that a
private university would, is 1.95 (exp(0.67)). In other
words, in terms of percentage change, the odds that a
public
institution
with
an
AACSB-accredited
undergraduate business program would utilize the MFTB are 95% higher than for an otherwise similarly situated
private institution. We found no effect for regional differences or the percentage of other schools using the MFTB in the focal state.
Due to the very substantial difference between the percentages of public and private schools using the MFT-B,
and because many other variables are heavily correlated
with this type of school, we ran separate regressions for
public and private schools. As before, we used logistic
regression for the model estimates. We report the results in
Table 4.
For public schools, most of the results are similar to the
regression for all schools reported in Table 4. As before,
Baccalaureate Carnegie Class classification public schools
and schools with high emphasis on teaching contributions
are much more likely to adopt the MFT-B. However, for
public schools, it is more likely that a school would use the
MFT-B if there were high percentages of other schools in
the state using the MFT-B. Schools located in the Midwest
are more likely to use the MFT-B than schools in the West.
Holding all other variables constant, for every 1% increase
in the number of other schools that use the MFT-B in a
given state, the odds of the focal school using the MFT-B
increases by a factor of 1.7 (exp(0.01)): there is a 7%
increase in the probability of using the MFT-B for every
1% increase in other universities in the state using the
MFT-B.
The full regression for private schools was not significant. Therefore, using backward elimination, we performed
a limited regression. We report results in Table 4, indicating that private baccalaureate and master’s Carnegie class
classification schools are more likely to use MFT-B than
research universities.
TABLE 3
Logistic Regression (All Undergraduate Schools)
Model 1
Model 2
Variable
Coefficient
Wald z
p
Coefficient
Wald z
p
(Intercept)
Public
Carnegie Master
Carnegie Baccalaureate
BPA-1: Teaching/intellectual
BPA-5: Teaching/intellectual
BPA-6: Teaching/equal
BPA-7: All equal
Others
NE
MW
South
AIC
LogL
n
¡3.28
0.67
0.29
1.79
2.04
0.81
1.66
¡0.09
0.01
0.43
0.53
0.56
528.03
¡252.014
458
¡5.59
2.57
1.05
3.25
4.16
1.73
2.71
¡0.07
1.52
1.12
1.44
1.61
.000**
.010*
.296
.001**
.000**
.084y
.007**
.944
.129
.263
.151
.109
¡2.49
0.72
0.28
1.75
2.02
0.83
1.62
¡0.19
¡5.43
2.96
1.02
3.22
4.21
1.83
2.67
¡0.15
.000**
.003**
.307
.001**
.000**
.068y
.008**
.879
y
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
534.01
¡259.004
458
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
379
TABLE 4
Logistic Regression for Public and Private Schools
Model 1 public
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
Variable
Coefficient
(Intercept)
Carnegie Master
Carnegie Baccalaureate
BPA-1: Teaching/intellectual
BPA-5: Teach and intellectual
BPA-6: Teaching/equal
BPA-7: All equal
Others
NE
MW
South
AIC
LogL
n
¡3.23
0.33
2.43
2.24
0.95
2.60
0.39
0.01
0.54
0.82
0.65
Model 2 public
Wald z
p
Coefficient
¡5.15
0.99
2.82
3.89
1.74
3.27
0.26
2.16
1.06
1.92
1.60
.000**
.323
.005**
.000**
.081y
.001**
.795
.031*
.289
.055y
.110
368.49
¡173.25
326
¡2.02
0.30
2.29
2.20
1.02
2.40
0.33
378.87
¡182.44
326
Private schools
Wald z
p
Coefficient
Wald z
p
¡4.23
0.96
2.72
3.94
1.93
3.13
0.21
.000**
.335
.007**
.000**
.053y
.002**
.830
¡1.24
0.76
1.65
¡3.62
1.79
2.25
.000**
.073y
.024*
162.12
¡78.058
142
y
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Prediction
From the previous estimation, to find a probability, p, that a
given AACSB institution would use the MFT-B, any school
(public or private) can use the following model (from
Table 3 results):
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 3:23 C 0:33 CMaster C 2:43
CBacc C 2:24 BPA1
C 0:95 BPA5 C 2:60 BPA6
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 3:28 C 0:67 Public C 0:29
CMaster C 1:79 CBacc
C 2:04 BPA1 C 0:81 BPA5 C 1:66
BPA6 ¡ 0:09 BPA7 C 0:01 Others
C 0:43 NE C 0:53 MW C 0:56 S: .2/
For example, a probability that a public school with a
research universities Carnegie Classification, BPA1 General Orientation, in a Western state where all other
AACSB-accredited universities in the state use the MFT-B
would be 56%—the result obtained by solving for p in the
following equation:
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 3:28 C 0:67 1 C 0:29 0
C 1:79 0 C 2:04 1
C 0:81 0 C 1:66 0 ¡ 0:09 0
C 0:01 100 C 0:43 0
C 0:53 0 C 0:56 0 D 0:264:
Estimation that is more precise can be derived from the
specific model for private or public schools. Therefore, the
following model can be used for public schools (Table 4,
Model 1):
¡ 0:39 BPA7 C 0:01 Others
C 0:54 NE C 0:82 MW C 0:65 S: .4/
For the school described previously, this probability
would be 59.5%, while the same school with a Master’s
Carnegie Classification would be 67%, and Baccalaureate
would be 94%.
Alternatively, the model without geographical location
can be used (Table 4, Model 2):
Ln.p=.1 ¡ p// D ¡ 2:02 C 0:30 CMaster C 2:29 CBacc
C 2:20 BPA1 C 1:02 BPA5
C 2:40 BPA6 C 0:33 BPA7:
.5/
.3/
If this school had a Master’s Carnegie Classification
instead, the probability would rise to 63%. If this school
had Baccalaureate Carnegie Classification, the probability
would be 89%. If those using this model desire not to
include geographical information, they should apply coefficients reported in Table 3, Model 2.
Using this equation, the probability for the previous
school is 54.6%, while the same school with Master’s Carnegie Classification would be 62%, and Baccalaureate 92%.
For a private school, using the results reported in
Table 4, the probability that a Research Carnegie University uses the MFT-B would be 22%, Master’s 38%, and
Baccalaureate 60%.
380
A. BIELINSKA-KWAPISZ AND F. W. BROWN
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
DISCUSSION
As a condition of gaining and sustaining external accreditation by the AACSB, business programs are currently
required to provide a mission statement which specifies
what goals the institution seeks to accomplish with their
students and AOL assessments indicating the extent to
which these goals were accomplished. As previously noted,
41% of AACSB-accredited undergraduate programs utilize
the MFT-B as a part of their satisfaction of their AOL.
The ETS provides tables that can be used to compare a
local institutional mean score to those of all other institutions also using the MFT-B. The meaningfulness and utility
of this comparison may in fact be quite limited for two reasons (a) not all institutions with undergraduate business
programs utilize the MFT-B and (b) there is no reason to
believe that those schools that do utilize the MFT-B are representative of all undergraduate programs. Green et al.
(2014) cited this lack of direct and meaningful comparability as a disadvantage associated with the use of the MFT-B.
Our study provides an empirical measurement of the extent
four-year undergraduate business programs accredited by
the AACSB utilize the MFT-B, and a description of the
characteristics of those programs.
Our analysis of the characteristics of the AACSBaccredited undergraduate institutions utilizing the MFT-B
provides at least some illumination on the characteristics of
the institutions that appear in the ETS comparative tables.
First, we compared the characteristics of accredited programs that use and do not use the MFT-B. Our results show
that schools that are public, classified as Baccalaureate Carnegie Class Classification, and that put high emphasis on
teaching contributions (BPA-1, BPA-5, and BPA-6) are
much more likely to use the MFT-B than private universities and research universities with high emphasis on intellectual contributions (BPA-2).
Second, in response to Research Question 2 we provide a
model that institutions could use to assist in determining
how comparable the schools in the ETS comparison set are
to their own institution, perhaps assisting in the decision of
whether or not to utilize the MFT-B. The higher the probability received from the model is, the more meaningful the
comparison with other schools is. For example, for a public
school with a research universities Carnegie Classification,
BPA1 General Orientation, in a W state where all other
AACSB-accredited universities in the state use the MFT-B,
the probability that a similar school (same Carnegie Classification and General Orientation) uses the MFT-B is 51%.
Programs and institutions may also find it useful to compare
their characteristics to other schools either using or not
using the MFT-B.
Additional studies examining the extent of utilization
and the characteristics of non–AACSB-accredited institutions utilizing the MFT-B could provide additional insights
into comparability across programs. Presently the ETS
provides the opportunity for institutions utilizing the MFTB to order a custom comparative data report that they can
use to compare a local score to a reference group of 10 or
more other selected institutions. Certainly, this provides
institutions, if they have access to the necessary metrics,
with at least a limited opportunity to create a more meaningful comparison than the use of the overall mean scores
provided by ETS. ETS should be encouraged to provide the
opportunity for MFT-B users to create more robust custom
comparison sets through the inclusion of accreditation status and other publically available institutional characteristics such as those used in our study. To do so would
make the MFT-B a more meaningful assessment of learning
at the local level and eminently more attractive for use at
the national level.
NOTES
1. See https://datadirect.aacsb.edu/public/misc/clients/
aacsb/help_orientation_codes.cfm?
2. See http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/
descriptions/basic.php
REFERENCES
Allen, J. S., & Bycio, P. (1997). An evaluation of the Educational Testing
Service Major Field Achievement Test in Business. Journal of Accounting Education, 15, 503–514.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2013).
Global listing. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/
accredited-members/global-listing.aspx
Bagamery, B. D., Lasik, J. J., & Nixon, D. R. (2005). Determinants of success on the ETS Business Major Field Exam for students in an undergraduate multisite regional university business program. Journal of
Education for Business, 81, 55–63.
Barboza, G. A., & Pesek, J. (2012). Linking course-embedded assessment
measures and performance on the Educational Testing Service Major
Field Test in Business. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 102–111.
Bean, D. F., & Bernardi, R. A. (2002). Performance on the Major Field
Test in Business: The explanatory power of SAT scores and gender.
Journal of Private Enterprise, 17, 172–178.
Benham, H. C., Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., & Brown, F. W. (2012). Software
applications course as an early indicator of academic performance.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 19, 1–16.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., & Brown, F. W. (2012). The impact of intellectual
heterogeneity on academic performance in business education. Research
in Higher Education Journal, 16, 1–15.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., & Brown, F. W. (2013). Differential gender performance on the Major Field Test–Business. Journal of Education for Business, 88, 159–166.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., Brown, F. W., & Semenik, R. J. (2012a). Is higher
better? Determinants and comparisons of performance on the Major
Field Test–Business. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 159–169.
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A., Brown, F. W., & Semenik, R. J. (2012b). Interpreting standardized assessment test scores and setting performance goals in
the context of student characteristics: The case of the Major Field Test
in Business. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 7–13.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:47 11 January 2016
CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTITUTIONS THAT UTILIZE THE MFT-B
Black, H. T., & Duhon, D. L. (2003). Evaluating and improving student
achievement in business programs: The effective use of standardized
assessment tests. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 90–98.
Bush, H. F., Duncan, F. H., Sexton, E. A., & West, C. T. (2008).
Using the Major Field Test-Business as an assessment tool and
impetus for program improvement: Fifteen years of experience at
Virginia Military Institute. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 5, 75–88.
Bycio, P., & Allen, J. S. (2007). Factors associated with performance
on the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Major Field Achievement
Test in Business (MFT-B). Journal of Education for Business, 82,
196–201.
Contreras, S., Badua, F., Chen, J. S., & Adrian, M. (2011). Documenting
and explaining Major Field Test results among undergraduate students.
Journal of Education for Business, 86, 64–70.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2013a). About ETS Major Field Test.
Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/mft/about.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2013b). Comparative data reports.
Overview of the comparative data guide. Retrieved from http://www.ets.
org/mft/scores/compare_data.
Gerlich, R. N., & Sollosy, M. (2009). Evaluating the assessment outcomes
in the principles of marketing course. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 127–135.
Green, J. J., Stone, C. C., & Zegeye, A. (2014). The Major Field Test in
Business: A solution to the problem of assurance of learning assessment? Journal of Education for Business, 89, 20–26.
Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: Are business schools making the grade? Journal of Education for Business, 82, 189–195.
Mason, P. M., Coleman, B. J., Steagall, J. W., Gallo, A. A., & Fabritius, M.
M. (2011). The use of the ETS Major Field Test for assurance of
381
business content learning: Assurance of waste? Journal of Education for
Business, 86, 71–77.
McLaughlin, P., & White, J. T. (2007). Major Field Achievement Test in
Business—Guidelines for improved outcome scores—Part I. College
Teaching Methods and Styles Journal, 3(2), 11–20.
Mirchandani, D., Lynch, R., & Hamilton, D. (2001). Using the ETS Major
Field Test in Business: Implications for assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 51–55.
Pringle, C., & Michel, M. (2006). Assessment practices in AACSB-accredited business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 202–211.
Rook, S. P., & Tanyel, F. I. (2009). Value-added assessment using the
Major Field Test in Business. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 87–94.
Settlage, D. M., & Settlage, L. A. (2011). A statistical framework for
assessment using the ETS Major Field Test in Business. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 274–278.
Smith, L. J., Clements, C., & Olson, J. E. (2010). Local versus standardized
content assessment: Some management implications, or why bother?
Journal of Education for Business, 85, 249–257.
Terry, N., Mills, L., Rosa, D., & Sollosy, M. (2009). Do online students
make the grade on the Business Major Field ETS exam? Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 13, 109–118.
Wilson, P. H. (2008). A protocol for analyzing the Major Field Test results.
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 33–45.
Word, W. R., & Rook, S. P. (2012). Analyzing Major Field Test in Business assessment results. Journal of Business Administration Online, 12,
1–11.
Zeis, C., Waronska, A., & Fuller, R. (2009). Value-added program assessment using nationally standardized tests: Insights into internal validity
issues. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 9, 114–128.