No abstract

Using a sample of 557 undergraduate business students from three U.S. comprehensive universities, this study examined: (a) the factor structure of the Perceived Stress Scale‐10 (PSS10; Cohen and Williamson, 1988); (b) the invariance of its factor structure; (c) the scale's reliability; and (d) its convergent and divergent validity. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a structure with two primary factors, General Distress and Ability‐to‐Cope, loading on a single second‐order factor, Perceived Stress. Furthermore, this model was confirmed for designated subpopulations including the 264 accounting majors who participated in the study. Notably absent in prior research, this study found two items, numbers 2 and 9, to load significantly on both the General Distress and Ability‐to‐Cope factors with men and the full sample, respectively. Item–total correlations, coefficient alphas, and Spearman‐Brown reliability coefficients supported the reliability of the items loading on the full scale as well as on each of the two primary factors. Combined, these findings provide compelling evidence in support of the PSS10 as a stress assessment measure for business students in general, and accounting students in particular. In fact, given its practical expediency in terms of administration and scoring, the PSS10 appears to be a tool that could be used by university administrators and potentially by human resource personnel at accounting and business organizations to assess student/employee perceived stress levels before the onset of burnout tendencies, thus facilitating more timely and cost‐effective intervention strategies.

Rapid and complex changes in the economic and business environment are posing serious challenges to today’s business executives. Meeting these challenges requires effective measures for control and performance evaluation. This article focuses on the uses, benefits and limitations of economic value added (EVA) as a value creation measure. Calculation of this trendy measure is complicated because of the many adjustments needed to convert the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) based income to economic income. The article compares the performance of EVA user companies with non-user Fortune 500 companies for the years 1997 and 1998. It shows that users performance means profits as percentage of revenues, assets, and stockholders’ equity were higher than the means of non-users. However, the means for 1998 earnings per share (EPS), EPS change from 1997 and EPS growth for the years 1988-1998 were lower for the EVA user companies. EVA will become less popular in its use as an instrument of control and performance evaluation. Therefore, the conclusion of this research is not in support of EVA use as a measure of value creation to stockholders.

No abstract

Section 3, Standards 2 and 10 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International's (2008) revised Eligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation addressed the expectations regarding the intellectual contributions of business school faculty and faculty qualifications. To assess the extent to which AACSB International member schools comprehend these 2 critical standards, the authors surveyed deans from 560 AACSB International member schools in the United States regarding the expectations and processes in place at their institutions to ensure compliance with them. The authors received usable responses from 177 (32%) people of those surveyed in the allotted timeframe. The resultspoint to areas of concern with respect to interpretation of both of these standards.