ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION American Accounting Association

Vol. 31, No. 3 DOI: 10.2308/iace-51227

August 2016
pp. 291300

Do Accounting Faculty Characteristics Impact CPA Exam

Performance? An Investigation of Nearly 700,000
Examinations
Dennis M. Bline
Bryant University

Stephen Perreault
Providence College

Xiaochuan Zheng
Bryant University
ABSTRACT: While many colleges and universities publicize CPA examination pass rates as evidence of having a
high-quality accounting program, some have questioned whether program-specific characteristics are legitimate
predictors of examination success. To examine this issue, we empirically investigate the link between accounting
faculty characteristics and performance on the CPA examination. We examine the results from nearly 700,000 first-
time exam sittings taken during the period 20052013 and find that faculty research and teaching specialization has
a significant impact on CPA exam performance. That is, when a program has a relatively higher percentage of
accounting faculty with expertise in a particular content area tested on the exam (e.g., auditing), graduates achieve
higher scores on the related exam section (e.g., AUD). We also find that faculty research productivity and CPA
certification status are positively related to candidate exam performance. We believe these results contribute to the
existing literature on the determinants of CPA exam success and also provide important insights to those responsible
for accounting faculty staffing and development.
Keywords: CPA exam; faculty specialization; accounting program quality.

INTRODUCTION

W
hile the demand for accountants and auditors continues to increase (Lockard and Wolf 2012), a significant number
of candidates do not pass the Uniform Certified Public Accounting Examination (CPA exam) in a timely manner.1
As such, success on the CPA exam is frequently touted by many universities as evidencing a high-quality
accounting program. This success has historically been measured using the average CPA exam pass rates published annually by
the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA). While these average pass rates may be useful for
marketing purposes, they do not provide empirical evidence that one programs faculty is better preparing students for the CPA
exam than others. This is because these pass rates may be largely determined by other factors, such as a programs student
profile and admissions difficulty. As a result, it is important to examine if, and how, faculty at institutions of higher education
can better equip students to perform well on this important assessment.

We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments received from the participants at the 2014 American Accounting Association Annual Meeting, and the
Bryant University 2014 Research and Engagement Day. In addition, we thank Peter Gallagher and Courtney Nason-Farrell for their research assistance.
We thank the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) for providing us with access to exam performance data, as well as for
providing financial support for this project.
Editors note: Accepted by Lori Holder-Webb.
Submitted: May 2014
Accepted: July 2015
Published Online: July 2015

1
The NASBA (2014) reports that the overall passing rate for CPA examination sections was 49.4 percent in 2013.
291
292 Bline, Perreault, and Zheng

In our study, we investigate a number of faculty-specific factors that may influence candidate performance on the CPA
exam. First, we examine whether the research and teaching specializations of accounting program faculty influence exam
performance. That is, we examine whether the percentage of accounting faculty who have expertise in a content area tested on
the exam (e.g., auditing) is associated with improved scores on the related examination section (e.g., AUD). In addition, we
examine the relationship between candidate performance and the research productivity of a programs faculty. Finally, we
examine whether candidate exam performance improves when an accounting program has a higher percentage of CPA-certified
instructors as members of its faculty.
Our findings suggest that a significant positive relationship exists between faculty specialization and candidate
performance across all four sections of the examination. Furthermore, we find a significant and positive relationship between
candidate performance and both faculty research productivity and faculty CPA certification status. In sum, our results indicate
that, to the extent that a school wishes to boost the performance of its students on the CPA exam, it may wish to recruit CPA-
certified faculty who have teaching interests related to content directly tested on the exam. Additionally, our findings indicate
that schools may wish to increase resources allocated to faculty research, since research productivity also appears to positively
influence candidate exam scores. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a link between these faculty
characteristics and examination performance.
We believe our study makes a number of important contributions to the existing literature on determinants of success on
the CPA exam. First, we are the only study to investigate candidate-level performance on the computerized exam.2 While most
prior studies conduct their analysis on solely a jurisdiction or school-wide level, we analyze exam performance on an individual
level, considering nearly 700,000 candidate-level observations from the period 20052013. In addition, given the significant
changes to the examination (both in form and in content) since its days as a pencil and paper examination administered in a
centralized testing location, our study responds to a need for updated research investigating the determinants of exam
performance in the modern setting.3 Second, we note that prior research has largely examined the factors that determine
whether a candidate will pass all four parts of the exam. Our dataset allows us to investigate whether the determinants of
candidate performance differ depending on the section of the examination being taken.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, background literature is presented and hypotheses are developed.
Next, the data and empirical results are presented. Finally, the paper ends with discussion and suggestions for future research.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

The CPA Exam

All states currently require candidates to pass the Uniform Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Examination in order to
become licensed public accountants. The CPA credential is perceived as a symbol of professionalism in the world of
accounting, and state licensing requirements exist so that the public receives competent and high-quality accounting services.
While nearly all states require the completion of 150 college credit hours to receive a license, many U.S. states allow candidates
to take the CPA examination after their attainment of only a bachelors degree.4
Prior to 2004, the CPA examination was administered using a pencil and paper format in a centralized testing center over
consecutive days. On April 5, 2004, the examination switched to a computerized format and is currently offered at authorized
testing centers throughout the year, with the exception of four blackout months during which the test is not available.5 As
opposed to taking all four examination sections in a single sitting, this change also permitted candidates to take sections of the
examination individually.
In addition to the switch to a computerized format, the 2004 change also adjusted the content areas tested on the exam. The
four content areas currently tested are Auditing and Attestation (AUD), Business Environment and Concepts (BEC), Financial
Accounting and Reporting (FAR), and Regulation (REG). As the entity responsible for approving the questions included on the
exam, the AICPA periodically publishes the Uniform CPA Exam Content Specification Outline (CSO), which summarizes the

2
To our knowledge, Grant, Ciccotello, and Dickie (2002) and Raghunandan, Read, and Brown (2003) are the only other studies to have examined actual
candidate-level performance data. However, both of these studies examine candidate performance during periods preceding the change to the
computerized exam (the periods 19961998 and 19981999, respectively).
3
A review of the existing literature identifies Briggs and He (2012) as the only empirical study published in a major accounting journal that examines
performance on the computerized exam. Their study examines pass rates at the jurisdiction (state) level to determine whether states adopting a 150-
credit hour requirement have higher pass rates than those that do not.
4
Prior to 2002, a bachelors degree in accounting (or with specific accounting coursework) was the primary educational requirement for CPA licensure
in many states.
5
These blackout months are March, June, September, and December, and provide the NASBA and the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA) with time to evaluate candidate performance and make modifications to the exam.

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
Do Accounting Faculty Characteristics Impact CPA Exam Performance? 293

general types of content tested within each section. Per the 2012 CSO, the FAR section generally tests content related to
financial accounting, financial statement presentation and disclosure, and standard setting, as well as government and non-profit
accounting. The REG section tests content related to taxation, business law, and business ethics/professional responsibilities.
BEC generally tests content related to information systems, corporate governance, economics, financial management,
operations management, project management, and strategic planning. Finally, AUD generally tests content related to auditing
and attestation, internal control, and business ethics/professional responsibilities.6
The revised exam also includes a series of simulation exercises across all sections of the exam, which require candidates to
perform tasks such as conducting research, working with spreadsheets, and completing written communication tasks.
Furthermore, the implementation of the computerized examination has resulted in the introduction of adaptive multiple-choice
questions, wherein a candidates prior performance affects the difficulty of subsequent multiple-choice questions presented.7

The Role of Faculty Characteristics

Some have questioned the traditional model of accounting higher education as a means of facilitating successful passage of the
CPA examination. For example, it has been argued that education may be only a relatively weak input in determining candidate
success on the examination, and that student aptitude, as measured by SAT or ACT scores, may be the strongest indicator of exam
success (Grant et al. 2002). In addition, prior research suggests that the implementation of the 150-credit hour requirement had little
effect on CPA exam pass rates (Allen and Woodland 2006). While this evidence may lead some to generally dismiss the importance of
college educators in preparing candidates to take the CPA exam, it may be the case that specific characteristics of accounting faculty
influence whether student achievement on the exam is positively affected by accounting coursework. However, the role of faculty
characteristics on candidate CPA exam performance remains largely unexamined in the literature.
In order to address this research gap, we first examine the possible effect of accounting faculty specialization on
examination performance. Investigating this variable is important, as it is commonly perceived that faculty perform better when
they teach material that is within their area of specialization (either from a teaching or a research perspective). Indeed, it seems
reasonable to assume, ex ante, that schools wishing to increase the performance of their students on the CPA exam may wish to
recruit faculty who have research or teaching interests that relate to content tested on the exam, as opposed to those who do not.
In support of this assumption, we note that a significant body of general education research indicates that student
achievement is enhanced when instructors have in-depth knowledge of the subject matter that they are teaching. For example,
studies have found that students score better on math achievement tests when their instructors have specialized training in
mathematics (Rowan, Chiang, and Miller 1997; Hill, Rowan, and Ball 2005). In addition, Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) found
that student math learning was enhanced when they were taught by instructors possessing a certification in mathematics (as
opposed to those who were not certified or who were certified in other disciplines, such as science).
In light of the evidence presented above, which suggests a potential link between instructor specialization and student
achievement, we investigate our first hypothesis as follows:
H1: Faculty research and teaching specialization is positively associated with student performance on the CPA
examination.
We also examine whether faculty research productivity affects a candidates score on the CPA examination. It may be the
case that heightened research productivity makes faculty better teachers. Indeed, it has been argued that teachers who maintain
an active research agenda are more likely to be aware of new advances in their discipline and to communicate cutting-edge
issues to students in the classroom (Neumann 1994; Jenkins, Blackman, Lindsay, and Paton-Saltzberg 1998). Furthermore,
both Bell, Frecka, and Solomon (1993) and Lindsay and Campbell (1995) have found that faculty research productivity is
positively associated with teaching effectiveness.
However, this contention is disputed among scholars, as others have argued that a faculty members research productivity
may be negatively correlated with his or her ability to be an effective teacher. As Blackburn (1974) suggests, poor classroom
performance may result from faculty neglecting their teaching obligations in order to pursue research. Furthermore, Hattie and
Marshs (1996) highly influential meta-analysis on the link between teaching effectiveness and research productivity suggests
that the teaching-research relationship is close to zero.

6
The AICPA issued revised CSOs in 2013 and 2014 subsequent to the completion of our data collection. However, there are no material changes when
comparing these later CSOs to the 2012 document. Note that in September 2015, the AICPA distributed an exposure draft of significant proposed
changes to the exam that are intended to go into effect in 2017.
7
The scoring procedure takes the difficulty of the questions into account so that candidates are scored fairly regardless of the difficulty of the multiple-
choice questions they encounter.

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
294 Bline, Perreault, and Zheng

To our knowledge, the only study to date that examines this issue within a CPA exam context is Boone, Legoria, Seifert,
and Stammerjohan (2006), who found a modest positive relationship between faculty research productivity and exam
performance. Specifically, the authors found that faculty research productivity was positively correlated with the percentage of
students passing all sections of the exam at one time. However, the studys conclusions with respect to this variable were
mixed, in that it also found that faculty research productivity had no effect on the percentage of candidates passing some (but
not all) sections of the exam in a single sitting. Furthermore, the Boone et al. (2006) study examines only the 19981999 time
period, in which candidates were required to sit for all four sections of the exam at the same time. Significant changes to both
the form and content of the CPA exam since that date necessitate a need for a reexamination of the role that faculty research
productivity plays in predicting exam performance. As such, we investigate our second hypothesis as follows:
H2: Faculty research productivity is positively associated with student performance on the CPA examination.
Finally, we examine whether candidate exam performance improves when an accounting program has a high percentage of
faculty who are CPA-certified. To our knowledge, no study has yet examined this issue, making our research somewhat exploratory
with respect to this research question. However, we believe that it is reasonable to expect that faculty CPA status may be positively
correlated with the exam performance of student candidates. That is, since certified faculty would have experience taking the
examination themselves and would typically have some amount of public accounting experience, faculty who hold a CPA license may
be better able to prepare students to score highly on the examination. Therefore, we investigate our third hypothesis as follows:
H3: Faculty CPA certification status is positively associated with student performance on the CPA examination.

DATA AND EMPIRICAL RESULTS

We obtained data on exam performance and candidate demographics from the NASBA. Our population consists of data
from candidates who took an examination section for the first time during the period 20052013. International candidates, as
well as candidates who reported attending an undergraduate institution that was not included in the Hasselback (2013)
Accounting Faculty Directory: 20132014, were excluded from our analysis, resulting in a final sample of 675,083 unique first-
time examination sessions.
Faculty specialization (which reflects both research and teaching specialization), as well as faculty CPA certification status,
were compiled from Hasselback (2013). We included all full-time faculty in our analysis.8 Specializations were matched to the
four examination sections and weighted based upon the Uniform CPA Exam Content Specification Outline (CSO) published by
the AICPA (2012).9 The classifications and weights that were used in our study are reported in Table 1.10 Faculty research
productivity was measured by using the programs accounting research ranking obtained from the overall accounting research
ranking (across all topics) compiled by Coyne et al. (2013).
We also collected data on a number of additional factors to serve as control variables in our study. We measured the
candidates age, gender, and whether he or she had attended graduate school (we obtained this data from the NASBA). We also
measured whether each business school was accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) and whether each department held AACSB-Accounting accreditation (we obtained this data from the NASBA and
Hasselback [2013]). We also collected data on accounting program ranking (Businessweek 2013), as well as incoming student
SAT scores at the institution level (collected from: http://www.collegedata.com/, as provided by the respective colleges and
universities) to proxy for the schools admissions difficulty.
Operational definitions and descriptive statistics for all of the variables we examine in this study are presented in Table 2
and Table 3, respectively.
The descriptive statistics in Table 3 present a number of interesting observations about the candidates who sat for an examination
section for the first time during the sample period. On average, they are 27 years old and approximately 60 percent male. Roughly 85

8
Since many business schools are responding to the shortage of accounting faculty by increasingly hiring non-tenure-track instructors (Schneider and
Sheikh 2012), we include full-time professionally qualified lecturers in our analysis.
9
For example, the CSO (AICPA 2012) indicates that approximately 60 percent of the REG section of the exam tests content related to taxation. As such, a faculty
member who indicates a research/teaching specialization in taxation would be assessed as having a 60 percent specialization in the exam content tested on the
REG section of the exam. Note that for faculty who reported multiple teaching/research interests, we used their primary reported interest for classification
purposes.
10
We provide the following example of our specialization calculation. Per Hasselback (2013), Weber State University had a total of ten faculty teaching
in the accounting department. Of these faculty, five reported a primary teaching/research interest related to content tested in the FAR section.
Specifically, four reported an interest in financial accounting (representing 40 percent of the faculty) and one reported an interest in accounting theory
(representing 10 percent of the faculty). Applying the content weights listed in Table 1, 34 percent of the total faculty at this institution had a teaching/
research interest related to FAR content (calculated as 40 percent  80 percent 10 percent  20 percent).

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
Do Accounting Faculty Characteristics Impact CPA Exam Performance? 295

TABLE 1
Faculty Specialization Weights
Specialization FAR BEC REG AUD
Advanced 30%
Audit 100%
Business Law 35%
Cost 10%
Ethics 20% 20%
Financial 80%
Governmental 20%
Managerial 10%
Not-for-Profit 20%
Systems 35%
Tax 60%
Theory 20%
This table reports the weights assigned to calculate faculty expertise for each section of the exam. These weightings were derived from the content and skill
specifications published by the AICPA (2012). Note that columns will not total to 100 percent since some content areas tested on the exam relate to more
than one faculty specialization (i.e., the specializations of government and not-for-profit accounting both pertain to the same 20 percent of FAR content).

percent report attending an AACSB-accredited business school, and approximately 52 percent report attending an accounting
program with AACSB-Accounting accreditation. Candidate performance for a first sitting of an examination section over the 2005
2013 period was strongest on the BEC section of the exam (mean score of 73.9), followed by the AUD section (mean score of 73.6).
Over this period, candidates performed less strongly on the REG and FAR sections of this examination (mean scores of 72.4 and 71.4,
respectively). Note that 75 is the minimum passing score, so, on average, candidates did not receive a passing score for each of the four
sections over this time period. In addition, approximately 54 percent of the faculty included in our analysis held the CPA certification.
We report the results of the simple correlations between all of the variables in our study in Table 4.

TABLE 2
Operational Definitions of Variables
Variable Operational Definition
SCORE The candidate score (ranging from 0100) on the respective section of the CPA exam. Obtained from the
NASBA.
SPECIALTY The weighted percentage (see Table 1 for details) of a schools accounting faculty that report a teaching and
research specialization in the content being tested on the exam section. Data used to calculate this variable
were obtained from Hasselback (2013).
RANK_RESEARCH The programs accounting research ranking. Obtained from the overall accounting research ranking (for all
topics) compiled by Coyne et al. (2013). Schools without a ranking are assigned the lowest rank.
CPA The percentage of a schools accounting faculty that have the CPA designation. Calculated using data obtained
from Hasselback (2013).
SAT Average combined SAT score (verbal and math) from the candidates undergraduate college or university.
Obtained from: http://collegedata.com/, as reported by the respective institutions.
AACSB An indicator variable coded as 1 if the candidates undergraduate institution has AACSB accreditation.
Obtained from the NASBA.
ACG_AACSB An indicator variable coded as 1 if the candidates undergraduate institution has AACSB-Accounting
accreditation. Obtained from Hasselback (2013).
AGE The candidates age. Obtained from the NASBA.
GENDER An indicator variable coded as 1 if the candidate is female. Obtained from the NASBA.
RANK_PROGRAM The rank of a schools accounting program. Obtained from the Businessweek (2013) accounting program
ranking. Schools without ranking are assigned the lowest rank.
GRADUATE An indicator variable coded as 1 if the candidate was enrolled in a graduate degree program, and 0 otherwise.
Obtained from the NASBA.

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
296 Bline, Perreault, and Zheng

TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics by Section
AUD FAR BEC REG
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Median Mean Std. Dev. Median Mean Std. Dev. Median Mean Std. Dev. Median
SCORE 73.559 16.079 76.000 71.381 16.539 75.000 73.914 13.410 77.000 72.449 15.437 75.000
SPECIALTY 13.018 12.492 11.111 36.023 16.472 34.286 3.296 2.743 2.647 6.760 5.688 6.429
RANK_RESEARCH 247.063 203.773 167.000 245.945 203.525 161.000 248.176 203.985 168.000 246.005 203.573 162.000
CPA 53.664 22.464 55.000 53.596 22.473 55.000 53.665 22.508 55.000 53.686 22.468 55.000
SAT 1146.818 118.980 1142.000 1147.747 119.050 1142.000 1145.712 119.506 1142.000 1147.427 119.289 1142.000
AACSB 0.876 0.330 1.000 0.877 0.328 1.000 0.875 0.331 1.000 0.877 0.328 1.000
ACG_AACSB 0.522 0.499 1.000 0.524 0.499 1.000 0.520 0.500 1.000 0.524 0.499 1.000
AGE 27.447 6.308 25.000 27.449 6.292 25.000 27.495 6.344 25.000 27.512 6.306 25.000
GENDER 0.401 0.490 0.000 0.397 0.489 0.000 0.399 0.490 0.000 0.398 0.490 0.000
RANK_PROGRAM 91.423 43.233 124.000 91.125 43.346 124.000 91.714 43.169 124.000 91.121 43.365 124.000
GRADUATE 0.113 0.316 0.000 0.115 0.319 0.000 0.113 0.317 0.000 0.113 0.317 0.000
n 170,717 166,762 173,124 164,480
See Table 2 for variable definitions.

Hypotheses Tests
To examine our hypotheses, we estimate the following regression model individually for each of the four sections of the
examination:
SCORE b0 b1 SPECIALTY b2 RANK RESEARCH b3 CPA b4 SAT
X b5 AACSB b6 ACG AACSB b7 AGE
b8 GENDER b9 RANK PROGRAM b10 GRADUATE bj STATE DUMMYj e:

This model contains our primary variables of interest related to faculty specialization, research productivity, and CPA
certification, as well as the additional control variables discussed earlier. Since different states have different requirements regarding
when candidates can sit for the exam, we also control for the effects of the state where the candidate is applying for certification
(STATE_DUMMY). Table 5 presents the results obtained from estimating this model using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression.
Our regression results in Table 5 indicate a significant positive relationship between our measure of faculty teaching/
research specialization (SPECIALTY) and candidate performance (SCORE) for all four sections of the examination (all p ,
0.01). As a result, H1 is supported. We also examine the relationship between faculty research productivity (RANK_
RESEARCH) and candidate performance (SCORE). We note that this relationship is significant and negative across all sections
of the exam (all p , 0.01). Since schools with a higher research ranking are actually ranked lower numerically (e.g., a school
ranked #1 is ranked higher than a school ranked #100), this finding is consistent with H2. Finally, we find a significant and
positive relationship between faculty CPA certification status (CPA) and candidate performance (SCORE) for all four sections
of the examination (all p , 0.01). This indicates that the higher the percentage of a programs faculty that are CPA certified, the
better that programs candidates perform on the exam. Therefore, H3 is also supported.

Additional Analyses
While the results of our test of H2 might seem to suggest that students who graduate from larger, research-oriented
universities will score higher on the examination than candidates from other institutions, the results of our test of H3 suggest
that candidates also appear to achieve higher scores when they are taught by faculty who are CPA-certified. Interestingly, we
note that programs with a high percentage of CPA-certified faculty often do not possess many of the characteristics of large,
research-oriented institutions.11 One implication of these findings may be that for students who do not attend a highly ranked,
research-oriented school, attending an institution with a high percentage of CPA-certified faculty may be a reasonable
alternative.

11
This is also supported by our descriptive data. For example, the correlation analysis previously reported in Table 4 indicates a negative correlation
between the variable measuring the percentage of a programs faculty with the CPA designation (CPA) and factors typically associated with larger,
research-oriented schools (e.g., research ranking [RANK_RESEARCH] and Businessweek (2013) ranking [RANK_PROGRAM]).

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
Do Accounting Faculty Characteristics Impact CPA Exam Performance? 297

TABLE 4
Spearman Correlation Table
n 675,083
RANK_ ACG_ RANK_
SCORE SPECIALTY RESEARCH CPA SAT AACSB AACSB AGE GENDER PROGRAM
SPECIALTY 0.002 1.000
(0.1949)
RANK_ 0.183 0.122 1.000
RESEARCH (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
CPA 0.015 0.023 0.377 1.000
(0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
SAT 0.214 0.024 0.549 0.185 1.000
(,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
AACSB 0.108 0.151 0.453 0.19 0.194 1.000
(,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
ACG_AACSB 0.115 0.153 0.521 0.012 0.224 0.393 1.000
(,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
AGE 0.183 0.012 0.089 0.036 0.244 0.041 0.046 1.000
(,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
GENDER 0.090 0.011 0.062 0.037 0.020 0.025 0.075 0.057 1.000
(,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
RANK_ 0.199 0.072 0.626 0.160 0.661 0.317 0.336 0.207 0.044 1.000
PROGRAM (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
GRADUATE 0.046 0.014 0.057 0.025 0.023 0.061 0.063 0.217 0.022 0.033
(,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001) (,0.0001)
Numbers in parentheses are the p-values.
See Table 2 for variable definitions.

To further demonstrate these findings, we disaggregated our population of institutions into terciles based upon their
research ranking and percentage of CPA-certified faculty. We then compared candidates scores across the terciles for each of
the four sections of the examination. As reported in Table 6, these descriptive data confirm that, across sections, candidate
scores are generally higher for institutions with a greater percentage of faculty holding the CPA certification and for institutions
with higher research rankings.12
As can be seen in Table 5, an examination of the coefficients on several of the control variables included in our model also
yields some interesting findings. For example, despite the mixed results of prior research examining the pre-computerized exam
period (e.g., Grant et al. 2002; Boone et al. 2006), we find that school and program accreditation positively impact candidate
performance.13 Specifically, candidates who are graduates of institutions with AACSB school-level accreditation score higher
on the individual sections of the exam than candidates who graduated from unaccredited programs (all p , 0.01). Furthermore,
candidates graduating from an accounting program with separate departmental accreditation (ACG_AACSB) also score
marginally higher than candidates from institutions with only school-level accreditation. In addition, and consistent with the
results of prior research (Colbert and Murray 1998; Raghunandan et al. 2003), we find a positive relationship between
candidate performance and admissions difficulty, as proxied by the schools average SAT score for incoming freshmen (all p ,

12
We caution the reader against drawing conclusions about whether CPA certification status or research ranking matters more in terms of predicting
candidate performance. This is due to the fact that this analysis is merely descriptive and does not control for student selectivity, which differs by
institution type. For example, our data suggest that, generally, highly ranked research schools enroll students with higher SAT scores than do schools
with a high percentage of faculty holding CPA certification. Table 6 is primarily included as additional evidence to support the fact that both faculty
CPA certification status and program research ranking appear to positively affect candidate performance.
13
A number of prior studies have examined the influence of accreditation status on exam performance with mixed results. For example, both Marts,
Baker, and Garris (1998) and Grant et al. (2002) found that examination performance is better among students who have graduated from schools with
AACSB business accreditation. However, a more recent research study by Boone et al. (2006), who examined pre-computerized exam scores, found
only weak evidence of a relationship between CPA examination pass rates and AACSB accreditation. The authors found a marginal relationship (p
0.065) between school-level accreditation and the likelihood of passing all parts of the exam in a single sitting. Interestingly, the authors found no
marginal effect of department-level accreditation on examination performance.

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
298 Bline, Perreault, and Zheng

TABLE 5
Test of Hypotheses
Dependent VariableSCORE by section
AUD FAR BEC REG
Parameter Parameter Parameter Parameter
Variable Estimate p-value Estimate p-value Estimate p-value Estimate p-value
Intercept 56.392 ,0.0001 60.245 ,0.0001 59.664 ,0.0001 60.733 ,0.0001
SPECIALTY 0.010 0.0011 0.016 ,0.0001 0.038 0.0012 0.021 0.0019
RANK_RESEARCH 0.002 ,0.0001 0.004 ,0.0001 0.003 ,0.0001 0.003 ,0.0001
CPA 0.014 ,0.0001 0.014 ,0.0001 0.011 ,0.0001 0.013 ,0.0001
SAT 0.019 ,0.0001 0.018 ,0.0001 0.019 ,0.0001 0.015 ,0.0001
AACSB 1.974 ,0.0001 1.352 ,0.0001 2.010 ,0.0001 1.476 ,0.0001
ACG_AACSB 0.266 0.0072 0.243 0.0176 0.272 0.0006 0.169 0.0823
AGE 0.252 ,0.0001 0.315 ,0.0001 0.250 ,0.0001 0.200 ,0.0001
GENDER 1.470 ,0.0001 2.860 ,0.0001 3.659 ,0.0001 1.814 ,0.0001
RANK_PROGRAM 0.017 ,0.0001 0.015 ,0.0001 0.019 ,0.0001 0.008 ,0.0001
GRADUATE 2.361 ,0.0001 2.771 ,0.0001 3.354 ,0.0001 2.034 ,0.0001
State fixed effect Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled
Adj. R2 0.074 0.088 0.139 0.061
n of Observations 170,717 166,762 173,124 164,480
See Table 2 for variable definitions.

0.01). We also find that higher-ranked accounting programs per the Businessweek (2013) rankings tend to produce higher-
scoring candidates (all p , 0.01).
We also find a significant negative relationship between candidate age (AGE) and examination performance (all p , 0.01).
This may be attributable to older candidates being further removed from college coursework, which may decrease performance,
or to other demographic characteristics of older candidates that may be negatively related to examination performance. We also
find a negative relationship between candidate gender and examination performance, with females scoring significantly lower
than male candidates across all four sections of the examination (all p , 0.01).14 In addition, candidates who were enrolled in a
graduate degree program (GRADUATE) score significantly higher on all four sections of the exam (all p , 0.01).
We also conducted a number of sensitivity analyses in order to examine the robustness of our findings. First, in order to
examine whether our faculty specialization estimates may have changed significantly over the 20052013 time period
examined in our study, we re-collected faculty specialization information for a random sample of 47 of the largest schools in
our dataset using the 2005 Directory (note that candidates from large schools make up the majority of the observations in our
population). We then compared the 2005 data to the 2013 data used in our analysis in order to identify significant differences.
We note that the AUD, FAR, and REG specialization estimates for the schools in this sample do not appear to significantly
differ between the time periods (all p . 0.10). We do note a slight decrease in the average BEC specialization for these schools
(a decrease from 5.6 percent specialization in 2005 to 4.5 percent in 2013; p 0.02). However, due to the fact that so few
faculty specialize in content tested on the BEC section to begin with, even minor changes in this measure are likely to be
statistically significant. We do not believe that this minor change affects our overall inferences.
Second, we re-performed our regression analysis using the specialized research rankings by Coyne et al. (2013) instead of
the overall rankings. Specifically, we used the auditing research ranking for analyzing AUD performance, the financial ranking
for FAR, the tax ranking for REG, and the AIS ranking for BEC. We note that our results generally replicate even when using
these alternate specialized rankings. That is, we continue to find that students from highly ranked research schools tend to score
higher on the exam sections than those from lower-ranked schools. For FAR and BEC, the coefficient on the RANK_
RESEARCH variable is 0.006 (p , 0.001), and for REG, the coefficient is 0.02 (p , 0.001). However, the coefficient for
AUD is no longer significant at the 0.01 level. This may be attributable to the fact that other relevant research (e.g., AIS
research) may also influence AUD section performance, but is no longer considered when using the specialized rankings.

14
This finding does not appear attributable to female candidates taking the exam at an older age than male candidates, since the correlation between the
age and gender variables indicates that females are actually taking the exam slightly earlier than males (r 0.057; p , 0.001).

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
Do Accounting Faculty Characteristics Impact CPA Exam Performance? 299

TABLE 6
Average Candidate Scores by Research Ranking and Faculty CPA Percentage
Research Rank Tercile
Percent of CPA Certified
Faculty Tercile Low Moderate High
Low AUD: 68.67 AUD: 73.67 AUD: 74.56
FAR: 66.36 FAR: 71.16 FAR: 72.76
BEC: 68.49 BEC: 74.15 BEC: 75.47
REG: 68.08 REG: 72.21 REG: 73.69
Moderate AUD: 70.72 AUD: 74.07 AUD: 77.12
FAR: 67.91 FAR: 72.16 FAR: 75.57
BEC: 70.62 BEC: 74.67 BEC: 77.86
REG: 69.51 REG: 73.25 REG: 75.55
High AUD: 70.85 AUD: 74.39 AUD 78.28
FAR: 68.39 FAR: 71.82 FAR: 76.53
BEC: 70.81 BEC: 74.44 BEC: 79.13
REG: 70.07 REG: 73.01 REG: 76.91
This table presents the average candidate scores for institutions disaggregated into terciles based upon their research ranking (RANK_RESEARCH) and
percentage of CPA certified faculty (CPA).

Finally, we examined whether the influence of faculty specialization becomes weaker as more time elapses between the
date the candidate takes the exam and his or her undergraduate degree date. In an untabulated analysis, we added an additional
term into our model to account for the interaction between the number of years that have elapsed since a student received his or
her undergraduate degree and our faculty specialization measure. The interaction term was negative and significant for all
sections of the exam, with the exception of BEC. Specifically, the coefficients and p-values were 0.001 (p , 0.001) for AUD;
0.001 (p , 0.001) for FAR; 0.001 (p 0.40) for BEC; and 0.002 (p , 0.001) for REG. As a result, for these sections, it
does appear that the influence of faculty specialization becomes weaker over time.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this study, we examined the relationship between accounting faculty characteristics and candidate performance on the
Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination. We are the first to demonstrate that the specialization of a departments
accounting faculty can significantly impact student performance on the CPA exam. Specifically, we find that candidates
perform significantly better on specific sections of the examination when accounting faculty have research and teaching
interests related to content tested on that section of the exam. In addition, we find a positive relationship between faculty
research productivity and faculty CPA certification status on candidate exam performance. Collectively, our results indicate that
to the extent a school wishes to improve the performance of its graduates on the CPA exam, it may wish to recruit CPA-
certified faculty who have teaching interests related to content directly tested on the exam. Furthermore, they suggest that
programs may wish to increase the resources allocated to faculty research, since research productivity also appears to improve
candidate exam performance. As a result, we find evidence that faculty research can actually provide important benefits to
students (as opposed to only benefiting the profession, which some might argue is the primary outcome of academic research).
In addition, and consistent with prior research, supplementary analysis indicates that a schools admissions difficulty, as
proxied by the SAT scores of its incoming freshman, is positively related to the performance of its graduates. Furthermore, and
despite the mixed results identified in prior research examining the pre-computerized examination, we find that both school-
wide and department-level AACSB accreditations are significantly associated with increased candidate performance.
Like most empirical research, our study is subject to limitations. For example, while our candidate-level data cover all
individuals taking the CPA examination for the first time during the test period, our admissions difficulty proxy is measured at
the institution level and, therefore, reflects the admissions difficulty for all majors (not just accounting). Furthermore, our
measure of faculty teaching and research specialization is self-reported and subject to the limitations of the Hasselback (2013)
Directory. Last, we were unable to obtain information about whether candidates took a review course prior to sitting for the
exam. While there is no reason to expect that our faculty specialization measure should be correlated with the likelihood of
candidates taking a CPA exam review course, future research may wish to consider how such courses impact exam
performance.

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
300 Bline, Perreault, and Zheng

While our study provides several interesting insights into the factors that affect candidate performance on the CPA exam,
future research may wish to consider the influence of several additional variables. For example, our results indicate that female
candidates achieve significantly lower scores across all four sections of the examination than do males and that older candidates
score more poorly than younger candidates. Research may wish to investigate factors (either exam-specific or accounting
curriculum-specific) that may help to explain these effects. In addition, future studies may wish to consider how other
institution-specific variables, such as the size of the institution and average class size, among other variables, influence
candidate performance.

REFERENCES
Allen, A., and A. M. Woodland. 2006. The 150-hour requirement and the number of CPA exam candidates, pass rates, and the number
passing. Issues in Accounting Education 21 (3): 173193.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2012. Content and Skill Specification for the Uniform CPA Examination.
Ewing, NJ: AICPA.
Bell, T. B., T. J. Frecka, and I. Solomon. 1993. The relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Empirical
evidence for accounting educators. Accounting Horizons 7 (1): 3349.
Blackburn, R. T. 1974. The meaning of work in academia. In Assessing Faculty Effort: New Directions for Institutional Research, edited
by Doi, J. I. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boone, J., J. Legoria, D. L. Seifert, and W. W. Stammerjohan. 2006. The associations among accounting program attributes, 150-hour
status and CPA exam pass rates. Journal of Accounting Education 24 (4): 202215.
Briggs, G. P., and L. He. 2012. The 150 credit-hour requirement and CPA examination pass ratesA four year study. Accounting
Education 21 (1): 97108.
Businessweek. 2013. The Best Undergraduate Business Schools by Specialty. New York, NY: Businessweek.
Colbert, G., and D. Murray. 1998. The association between states education requirements and CPA exam performance. Research in
Accounting Regulation 12 (1): 93108.
Coyne, J., J. Pickerd, N. M. Stephens, S. L. Summers, B. Williams, and D. A. Wood. 2013. Accounting Research Rankings. Available at:
http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings
Goldhaber, D. D., and D. J. Brewer. 2000. Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student
achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22 (2): 129145.
Grant, C. T., C. S. Ciccotello, and M. Dickie. 2002. Barriers to professional entry: How effective is the 150-hour rule? Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy 21 (1): 7193.
Hasselback, J. R. 2013. Accounting Faculty Directory: 20132014. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hill, H. C., B. Rowan, and D. L. Ball. 2005. Effect of teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal 42 (2): 371406.
Jenkins, A., T. Blackman, R. Lindsay, and R. Paton-Saltzberg. 1998. Teaching and research: Student perspectives and policy
implications. Studies in Higher Education 23 (1): 127141.
Lindsay, D. H., and A. Campbell. 1995. The association of faculty research in accounting with a measurable teaching outcome: Evidence
from the western region. Accounting Educators Journal 7 (2): 6990.
Lockard, C. B., and M. Wolf. 2012. Occupational employment projections to 2010. Monthly Labor Review (January): 84108.
Hattie, J., and H. W. Marsh. 1996. The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 66
(4): 507542.
Marts, J. R., J. D. Baker, and J. M. Garris. 1988. Success on the CPA examination in AACSB accredited and non-accredited schools.
Accounting Educators Journal 1: 7491.
National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA). 2014. 2013 Examination Summary Report. Nashville, TN: NASBA.
Neumann, R. 1994. The teaching-research nexus: Applying a framework to university students learning experiences. European Journal
of Education 29 (3): 323339.
Raghunandan, K., W. J. Read, and C. D. Brown. 2003. The 150-hour rule: Does it improve CPA exam performance? Managerial
Auditing Journal 18 (1): 3138.
Rowan, B., F. Chiang, and R. J. Miller. 1997. Using research on employees performance to study the effects of teachers on students
achievement. Sociology of Education 70 (4): 256284.
Schneider, G. P., and A. Sheikh. 2012. Addressing the shortage of accounting faculty: Using non-tenure-track positions. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal 16 (1): 118.

Issues in Accounting Education

Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
Copyright of Issues in Accounting Education is the property of American Accounting
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.