Doctoral Comprehensive Exams in Marketing: Current Practices and Emerging Perspectives

Abstract

Current and emerging issues concerning the written comprehensive exam process are addressed. Both the purpose and structure of this exam are considered. Survey results are presented that describe the purposes of the exam from the perspective of doctoral coordinators. Also included is a description of how marketing departments are currently administering these exams. The movement to nontraditional exam structures is documented, and a description of several of these nontraditional approaches is provided. The authors conclude with a discussion of comprehensive exam issues and provide a recommendation for ongoing assessments of exam choices based on specific program objectives.

The Doctoral Comprehensive Examination in Counselor Education: Faculty Members’ Perception of its Purposes

“…A factor analysis of individual scale items would be useful in identifying variables that are correlated with one another but independent of other subsets. The independent variable was defined by literature (Fox, 1985;Peterson et al, 1992;Ponder et al, 2004); however, numerous variations were reported in the nontraditional format. This may limit the results found.…”

“…purpose within doctoral counselor education programs and across disciplines (Furstenberg & Nicholas-Casebolt, 2001;Ponder, Beatty, & Foxx, 2004).…”

“…The philosophical underpinnings of the comprehensive examination have changed over the decades, ranging from a need for students to publically distinguish themselves as future educators (Jones, 1933), to a rite of passage (Molbert, 1960), to facilitating cognitive complexity (Loughead, 1997), to preparing students for future scholarship (Ponder et al, 2004), and program evaluation (Cobia et al, 2005). Though prominent in higher education, Cobia et al (2005) question if the historical purposes and formats of the comprehensive examination are consistent with current expectations and training in doctoral counseling programs, particularly in light of the shift within higher education toward outcome-based education (OBE), where the focus of curriculum and accreditation is on measuring and documenting student learning (CACREP, 2015;CHEA, 2010).…”

“…Loughead (1997) recommended utilizing Bloom's taxonomy as the primary purpose for designing the comprehensive examination, evaluating, and providing feedback to students to facilitate higher order thinking. Loughead (1997) An extensive review of the literature within counselor education and across disciplines yielded five main purposes for the comprehensive examination: (1) to assess lower levels of cognitive complexity (Anderson et al, 1984;Burch & Peterson, 1983;Khanna & Khanna, 1972;Loughead, 1997;Manus et al, 1992;Peterson et al, 1992;Ponder et al, 2004;Saraf, 1985); (2) to assess higher levels of cognitive complexity (Anderson et al, 1984;Boes, Ullery, Millnner, & Cobia, 1999;Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Fox, 1985;Loughead, 1997;Manus et al, 1992;Peterson et al, 1992;Ponder et al, 2004;Saraf, 1985); (3) to promote a beneficial learning experience (Cobia et al, 2005;Fox, 1985;Furstenberg & Nicholas-Casebolt, 2001;Peterson et al, 1992;Schafer & Giblin, 2008;Thomason et al, 1980); (4) to prepare students for future scholarship (Burch & Peterson, 1983;Cobia et al, 2005;Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Ponder et al, 2004;Thyer, 2003); and (5) to maintain tradition (Anderson et al, 1984;Beck & Becker, 1969;Eisenburg, 1965;McKee et al, 1999;Molbert, 1960;S...…”

“…For the purpose of this study, the written examination was categorized into two separate formats: traditional and nontraditional. What was considered traditional and nontraditional was defined in literature by Fox (1985), Peterson et al (1992) and Ponder et al (2004). The Traditional Comprehensive Examination refers to a closed-book, onsite, written comprehensive examination.…”