Skip to main content
Log in

Personality and student performance on evaluation methods used in business administration courses

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to verify whether personality (Big Five model) influences performance on the evaluation methods used in business administration courses. A sample of 169 students enrolled in two compulsory undergraduate business courses responded to an online questionnaire. As it is difficult within the same course to assess students’ performance on several evaluation methods, students’ performance is rated in this study using a latent variable inferred from two self-reported measures: preference for evaluation methods and grades generally obtained on each of these methods. Two control variables (gender and age) were also included in the analyses. Multiple linear hierarchical regressions indicate that the Big Five factors explains 6 to 13 % of the variability in performance on group work, oral exams, written exams, multiple choice tests, and practical work. The discussion focuses on how different personality factors are called upon when it comes to performance on evaluation methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. All over the text and the research hypotheses, PEEM is expressed as a measure of performance, while in fact it reflects a mixture of preference and self-reported performance. Indeed, as mentioned in the introduction, students’ performance is rated in this study using two self-reported measures: preference for EMs and grades generally obtained on each EM.

  2. We gave this direction to the hypothesis even though Furnham et al. (2013) reported a positive link between agreeableness and performance on written exams. These authors did not justify this result. We preferred to follow the rationale given by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005).

  3. Correlations among PEEM are presented in Appendix 1.

  4. For each of the EMs, analyses verified whether the theoretical model fits the data. To do so, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ 2/df), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were reported (see table in Appendix 2). During analyses, the robust methods of the maximum likelihood were used because the data were not normally distributed. EQS version 6.2 software was used to test the proposed model. Lagrange multiplier tests (LM tests) were conducted on the data, and a more parsimonious model for each EM was developed in this study by allowing gender, age, and personality variables to correlate, as did Phillips et al. (2003). For simulations, group work, oral exams, written exams, multiple choice tests, practical work, and projects, results showed a good fit to the data.

References

  • Bauer, K. W., & Liang, Q. (2003). The effect of personality and precollege characteristics on first-year activities and academic performance. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of non-traditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. (2003). Determinants of undergraduate student drop-out rates in a university Business Studies Department. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(2), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehnke, K. (2005). Value orientations in relation to mathematical self-esteem: an exploratory study of their role in mathematical achievement among German, Israeli, and Canadian 14-year-olds. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(3), 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment: utility of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 651–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budaev, S. V. (1999). Sex differences in the Big Five personality factors: testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(5), 801–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(6), 1057–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassady, J.C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: a methodological note. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(12). http://PAREonline.net. Accessed 17 Aug 2009.

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). Creativity versus conscientiousness: which is a better predictor of student performance? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 521–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(3), 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality predicts academic performance: evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., Dissou, G., & Heaven, P. (2005). Personality and preference for academic assessment: a study with Australian University students. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(4), 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. S., & Gonya, R. M. (2010). Accuracy of self-reported SAT and ACT test scores: implications for research. Research in Higher Education, 51(4), 305–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conard, M. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: how personality and behaviour predict academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(3), 339–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 216–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrea, R. R. (1992). Manual for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davy, J., Smith, K., & Rosenberg, D. (2010). Motivation and (un)ethical behavior: are there gender differences? Forum on Public Policy. http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer09/archivesummer09/davy.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2011.

  • De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Raad, B. (1996). Personality traits in learning and education. European Journal of Personality, 10(3), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinguer, S. J., & Orf, L. A. (1991). Personality and performance in “personality”. Conscientiousness and openness. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 276–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 558–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Ansari, W. (2002). Student nurse satisfaction levels with their courses: part I—effects of demographic variables. Nurse Education Today, 22(2), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: the role of personality, intelligence and application. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1225–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgette-Giroux, R., Simon, M., & Larivière, M. B. (1996). Les pratiques d’évaluation des apprentissages en salle de classe: perception des enseignantes et des enseignants. Revue Canadienne de l’Education, 21(4), 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3), 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1996). The big five vs the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1997). Knowing and faking one’s five-factor personality score. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(1), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 943–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Individual differences and beliefs concerning preference for university assessment methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(9), 1968–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: a study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2003). Personality, cognitive ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 14(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Christopher, A., Garwood, J., & Martin, N. G. (2008). Ability, demography, learning style, and personality trait correlates of student preference for assessment method. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Nuygards, S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Personality, assessment methods and academic performance. Instructional Science, 41(5), 975–987.

  • Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality intelligence relations: assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 537–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2002). General and specific traits of personality and their relation to sleep and academic performance. Journal of Personality, 70(2), 177–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindi, N., & Miller, D. (2000). A survey of assessment practices in accounting departments of colleges and universities. Journal of Education for Business, 75(5), 286–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmgren, M. A. (2008). Assessment of student learning in MBA programs: a study of higher learning commission accredited institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lincoln University, Nebraska, USA.

  • Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2001). Back to basics: a consideration of the purposes of the PhD viva. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevern, J., Ricketts, C., & Webbs, C. (1999). Pre-registration diploma students: a quantitative study of entry characteristics and course outcomes. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(4), 785–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, B. A., & Sereda, L. (1969). Accuracy of self-reported college grade average and characteristics of non- and discrepant reporters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29(1), 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottke, J. L., & Shultz, K. S. (1997). Using an assessment center as a developmental tool for graduate students: a demonstration. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(5), 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The reliability of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakhal, S., Frenette, É., Sévigny, S., & Khechine, H. (2012). Relationship between choice of a business major type (thing-oriented versus person-oriented) and Big Five personality traits. International Journal of Management Education, 10(2), 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhal, S., Sévigny, S., & Frenette, E. (2013). Personality and preference for evaluation methods: a study among business administration university students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(2), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens, F., Coetsier, P., De Druyt, F., & De Maeseneer, J. (2002). Medical students’ personality characteristics and academic performance: a five-factor model perspective. Medical Education, 36(11), 1050–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, J. W., Smith, R. M., Levy, J. J., Leon, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2009). Personality characteristics of business majors as defined by the Big Five and narrow personality traits. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 200–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Age differences in personality: evidence from a nationally representative Australian sample. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1353–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martell, K. (2007). Assessing student learning: are business schools making the grade? Journal of Education for Business, 82(4), 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., Campbell, J., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., & Knight, A. (2007). Overestimation bias in self-reported SAT scorers. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). Teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (12th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, K., & Gow, K. (2004). Exploring the first year academic achievement of school leavers and mature-age students through structural equation modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, 14(2), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2001). Who succeeds at university? Factors predicting academic performance in first year Australian university students. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naderi, H., Abdullah, R., Aizan, H. T., Sharir, J., & Kumar, V. (2009). Self-esteem, gender and academic achievement of undergraduate students. American Journal of Scientific Research, 3, 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndinga, P. (2004). L’incidence de la fonction évaluative du test sur la relation entre la motivation des élèves à bien réussir et leurs scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.

  • Ndinga, P., & Frenette, E. (2010). Élaboration et validation de l’Échelle de motivation à bien réussir un test (ÉMRT). Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 33(3), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchards, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonis, S. A., & Swift, C. O. (1998). Cheating behavior in the marketing classroom: an analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes, and in-class deterrent strategies. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(3), 188–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomba, C. A. (2001). Implementing effective assessment. In Assessing student competence in accredited disciplines. Pioneering approaches to assessment in higher education. Sterling: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50(4), 545–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 538–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, P., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2003). Personality, cognition and university students’ examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(6), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the Five-Factor Model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, R. E., Aguirre, M., Mayes, B. T., Belloli, C., & Kubiak, C. (1997). The use of assessment center methods for student outcome assessment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(5), 273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, R. E., Mayes, B. T., & Schleicher, D. J. (2003). Using assessment center methods for measuring undergraduate business student outcome. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfhus, E., & Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Assessing individual differences in knowledge: knowledge, intelligence, and related traits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 511–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate business school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 516–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, G. (2005). The big five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1495–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabourin, S., & Lussier, Y. (1992). Traduction française de l’inventaire de personnalité NEO-FFI [A French translation of the NEO-FFI]. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Sanchez-Marin, M., Rejano-Infante, E., & Rodriguez-Troyano, Y. (2001). Personality and academic productivity in the university student. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(3), 299–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleigh, S. (2008). The interaction of assessment format and sex in assessing the knowledge structure coherence of middle school students’ understanding of the concept of force. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Arizona, USA.

  • Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, B. E., Fukuta, J., & Gordon, F. (2010). Live lecture versus video podcast in undergraduate medical education: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 10, 68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheard, M. (2009). Hardiness commitment, gender, and age differentiate university academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., Rosenbergc, D. L., & Haight, G. T. (2002). A structural modeling investigation of the influence of demographic and attitudinal factors and in-class deterrents on cheating behavior among accounting majors. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., & Easterling, D. S. (2004). An examination of cheating and its antecedents among marketing and management majors. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(10), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., Rosenbergc, D. L., & Haight, G. T. (2009). The role of motivation and attitude on cheating among business students. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 1, 12–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Kayfman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J. O., & Shuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the big five and academic success at university. Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2004). Openness to experience and boundaries in the mind: relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of Personality, 72(4), 659–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles: their relationships with modes of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1988). Interaction between examination type, anxiety state, and academic achievement in college science; an action-oriented research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1990). Gender differences in examination-type preferences, test anxiety, and academic achievements in college science education—a case study. Science Education, 74(6), 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sawsen Lakhal.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 8 Correlations among PEEM

Appendix 2

Table 9 Quality of adjustment indicators for model data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lakhal, S., Sévigny, S. & Frenette, É. Personality and student performance on evaluation methods used in business administration courses. Educ Asse Eval Acc 27, 171–199 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9200-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9200-7

Keywords