Articles
GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR
OF SUCCESS IN A MANAGERIAL
COMMUNICATION COURSE
Kathy L. Hill
Geraldine E. Hynes
Sam Houston State University
Marguerite P. Joyce
Belhaven University
John S. Green
Texas A&M University
Because communication skills, especially writing, are such an integral part of managerial work, it may be postulated that these skills are associated with managerial success.
Yet evidence of writing competency is not universally considered for admission to MBA
programs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible correlation between
the Analytical Writing Assessment Section (AWA) of the GMAT exam and a “critical thinking” writing assignment that is similar to the AWA. Results indicate that the AWA is
significantly correlated with achievement, not only on the writing assignment but also
with the final grade in a managerial communication course.
Keywords: GMAT-AWA; managerial communication; business writing; critical thinking
THE GRADUATE MANAGEMENT ADMISSION Test (GMAT)
is a standardized test designed to measure verbal, mathematical, and
analytical writing skills (Graduate Management Admission Council
[GMAC], 2010b). The GMAT consists of a Verbal component (GMAT-V)
and a Quantitative component (GMAT-Q). The Analytical Writing
Assessment (AWA) was instituted as a regular part of the GMAT in
1994, and it was designed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS)
as a test of analytical writing ability. The AWA is a direct test of writing
ability that requires applicants to produce whole discourse or complete
texts about a piece of writing or short paragraphs in response to test
prompts. It measures sentence- and word-level language skills as well
Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 74, Number 2, June 2011 103-118
DOI: 10.1177/1080569911404052
© 2011 by the Association for Business Communication
103
104 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
as a test taker’s ability to develop and organize ideas by requiring the
composition of a complete piece of writing with a beginning, middle,
and end. The AWA score is an average of the ratings given to the
Analysis of an Issue and the Analysis of an Argument sections. Scores
for the AWA range from 0 to 6 in half-point intervals with an AWA of
4.0 interpreted as competent analysis of the issue (GMAC, 2010a).
The AWA is an academic essay; it does not test managerial writing.
GMAT scores are commonly considered during the admission process
in graduate business programs around the world (Talento-Miller, Siegert,
& Talliaferro, 2010). As is true for standardized tests required for undergraduate admission to educational institutions, such as the SAT and the
ACT, GMAT scores are routinely relied on to predict a potential business student’s success at the graduate level. When writing components
were added to these standardized tests, attention was drawn to the importance of writing competency in an academic environment. On the other
hand, the available research on the validity of using writing samples or
writing section scores for admission decisions is limited. There is some
indication that the writing components of the SAT, the ACT, and the
Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) are only moderately related
to success, with little added to the predictive value of traditional section
scores and students’ grades (Talento-Miller et al., 2010). As for the
Graduate Record Examination (GRE), an article from the ETS (2007)
provided evidence supporting the construct validity of the writing assessment, but did not provide correlational analyses with graduate grades.
Three coauthors of this article have taught a managerial communication course that is a requirement in our universities’ graduate business
programs. One of the coauthors is also a trained grader of the GMATAWA. These experiences led us to examine the AWA’s relationship to our
graduate business students’ writing performance. We asked, to what extent
does the GMAT-AWA score relate to graduate business students’ achievement? More specifically, to what extent does the GMAT-AWA reflect
managerial writing competency? Clearly, the Graduate Management
Admissions Council, current sponsor of the GMAT-AWA, recognizes that
writing is essential to management education and, by extension, essential
to management in today’s organizations. Language and communication
skills play an important role in the workplace. It would be incorrect to
assume that students with high scores on the AWA have achieved sufficient
managerial communication ability for success in the workplace and/or
Hill et al. / GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS 105
success in their graduate courses; nor should administrators assume that
graduate business students should be exempt from a management communication course based solely on their score on a standardized test. The
AWA is a highly visible endorsement of writing as a critical competency
for management education, yet it is not considered as part of the admission process at our college of business administration.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the possible
relationships between the GMAT-AWA score and two other variables. The
first variable is students’ score on a “critical thinking” writing assignment
in a graduate managerial communication course. This writing assignment
closely resembles the critical thinking necessary to score well on the GMATAWA as well as measures sentence- and word-level language skills and
the student’s ability to develop and organize ideas by requiring the composition of a complete piece of writing with a beginning, middle, and end.
The second variable of interest is students’ final grade (A, B, or C) in a
graduate managerial communication course. Furthermore, a nonparametric
correlation technique was used to investigate the relationship between the
students’ grade on an analytical writing assignment and their final grade
in the communication course. Finally, in an effort to predict success in the
graduate managerial communication course, logistic regression was used
with the GMAT-AWA score and the grade on the writing assignment as
predictor variables and the course grade as the dependent measure.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many studies have evaluated admission criteria, trying to determine
the best predictors of students’ academic success in respective MBA
programs. The literature provides mixed reviews on the efficacy of
work experience, undergraduate discipline, undergraduate graduate
point average (UGPA), selected demographic variables (e.g., age and
gender), and the GMAT score. Since the primary use of the GMAT is
to assist graduate schools in making admissions decisions, the validity
of GMAT scores depends on the degree to which it predicts students’
academic performance in graduate school. Previous studies have had
mixed results regarding the predictive value of GMAT scores as well
as the UGPA on graduate academic performance.
Early studies by Deckro and Woundenberg (1977) and Gayle and
Jones (1973) reported that traditional admission criteria contain useful
106 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
predictors of student academic success, and that total score on the GMAT
was the best single predictor of student academic access in respective
MBA programs. More recently, several studies have tried to determine
if GMAT scores and MBA success, as measured by graduate GPA, are
correlated. GMAT score, age, gender, marital status, race, work experience, UGPA, and undergraduate major have been among the factors
tested for their ability to predict graduate student success in the MBA
program. Carver and King (1994) found that GMAT score, UGPA, and
work experience were strong predictor variables, while GMAT score
was the best lone predictor of success. On the other hand, Ahmadi,
Raiszadeh, and Helms (1997) found that although UGPA and GMAT
scores did predict success, their predictive ability was low. They therefore
suggested that other additional criteria may need to be used in selecting
prospective students, such as writing samples, interviews, work experience, or other nonquantitative measures or assessments, and that qualitative measures are needed to more accurately predict academic success.
They concluded that considering these additional factors would allow
schools to admit more qualified students into their MBA programs and
raise the school’s overall academic standing (Ahmadi et al., 1997).
Yang and Lu’s (2001) study used correlation and regression
techniques to determine which variables are most closely related
to the academic success of the recent graduates of an MBA program.
The MBA students’ overall GPA was used as the dependent variable.
The independent variables investigated as predictors were gender,
students’ native language, students’ UGPA, and GMAT total score
(verbal and quantitative). They found that the UGPA was the most
important predictor for students’ graduate academic performance,
followed by GMAT-Q and GMAT-V, and that native language made
little predictive contribution. However, they recommended that admission decisions be made incorporating other criteria such as writing
samples, career statements, personal interviews, and references, to
ensure more academic success in their MBA students.
Braunstein (2002) used correlation and regression techniques to determine which variables were most closely related to the academic success
of the recent graduates of an MBA program. The independent variables
included GMAT total score, GMAT-Q and GMAT-V, UGPA, type of
undergraduate degree, undergraduate institution, gender, and years of
work experience (years between the completion of the bachelor’s degree
Hill et al. / GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS 107
and the first term of enrollment in the MBA program). The study’s results
were consistent with those of Yang and Lu’s (2001), in that they found
that UGPA and GMAT score had the strongest positive correlations with
graduate GPA. Other variables of statistical significance included gender,
type of undergraduate degree obtained, and years of work experience.
Sulaiman and Mohezar (2006) found that demographic factors such
as work experience, age, gender, and ethnicity were ineffective as predictors of academic success at the graduate level in business programs.
Although UGPA was a predictor of success at the graduate level, it
accounted for only about a quarter of the variation. Undergraduate
disciplines also affected graduates’ MBA performance. They also found
that students with a business or management background performed
better in the MBA program than did students with limited work
experience.
Talento-Miller and Rudner (2008) examined the validity of GMAT
scores by summarizing 273 studies conducted between 1997 and 2004
through the Validity Study Service of the test sponsor. The studies
contained identical variables and statistical methods. They concluded
that the GMAT total score was the best individual predictor because it
is based on performance in both the Verbal and Quantitative sections.
The body of literature focusing specifically on the usefulness of
the writing component of the GMAT is relatively small. In the years
immediately following the launch of the AWA, a series of articles by
Rogers and Rymer (1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1996a, 1996b) explored its
implications for graduate-level business communication courses. They
pointed out that the AWA is an academic essay and not a test of managerial writing, and they warned that misuse of the AWA might lead to
the transformation of “management communication . . . into something
approaching remedial writing” (Rogers & Rymer, 1996a, p. 71). Their
research (Rogers & Rymer, 1996a) on the value of the AWA for diagnostic purposes was supported in part by the GMAC. Rogers and
Rymer (1996a) suggested to MBA admissions administrators that
AWA scores provide useful preliminary information, but that for diagnostic purposes the administrators must evaluate the AWA essays
themselves. In subsequent years, Rogers and Rymer (2001) systematically evaluated the AWA as a diagnostic tool. They identified a range
of applications of the AWA essays to management communication
instruction and evaluation of students’ writing effectiveness. They
108 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
concluded that “the [analytical] tools actually work to help students
with their MBA writing” (Rogers & Rymer, 2001, p. 138).
Noll and Stowers (1998) surveyed 59 member schools of GMAC
to determine if the AWA was meeting the two major purposes for
which it was designed. They found that 86% of the schools used the
AWA in their admission decisions. A total of 73% of the respondents
said they do not use the AWA as an academic assessment tool to modify
existing management communication course(s), eliminate local writing assessments, or offer new courses, even though the majority of
the schools (62%) either require a communication course or offer one
as an elective. Perhaps the most interesting result of the study was
that over 37% of respondent schools used the AWA as a diagnostic
tool for identifying applicants who were deficient in standard American
English, an application not intended by GMAC.
A study by Sireci and Talento-Miller (2006) retrospectively compared contemporary management students’ performance in graduate
school with their GMAT scores and the degree to which the predictive
power of GMAT scores holds up over specific subgroups of gender
or race/ethnicity. They looked at four predictors: GMAT-Q, GMAT-V,
GMAT-AWA, and UGPA. Because 3 of the 11 schools examined in
the study did not provide data on students’ GMAT-AWA, the researchers looked at the predictive relationship with and without GMAT-AWA.
Their results suggest that, consistent with previous studies, GMAT-Q
and GMAT-V scores are good predictors of first-year GPA in graduate
school; however, the predictive utility of the GMAT-AWA was relatively low. The GMAT-AWA accounted for only about an additional
1% of the variation. They suggested further study of the utility of
GMAT-AWA (Sireci & Talento-Miller, 2006).
More recently, Talento-Miller et al. (2010) reported that the GMATAWA was a valuable predictor for students in certain programs, although
the effect was modest. Specifically, average validity values were higher
for males and non-U.S. citizens. The highest validity values were
observed for executive MBA and full-time programs and programs in
non-U.S. locations. Therefore, they concluded that the GMAT total
score, GMAT-AWA score, and the UGPA are quite impressive as predictors for graduate academic performance in business programs.
Although most previous studies focused on the predictive validity
of the GMAT-AWA, Siegert and Guo (2009) investigated its reliability.
Hill et al. / GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS 109
Reviewing previous studies, they found that reliability data were
sketchy and inconclusive. Siegert and Guo applied a multidimensional
design to calculate a range of reliability coefficients from multiple
samples of essays. Their findings were promising, but they concluded
that the reliability of the AWA may be overestimated due to factors
that had not been accounted for in the previous studies’ designs.
To summarize, previous literature has shown that GMAT scores,
particularly the composite of the GMAT-Q and GMAT-V, are reliable
predictors of success in MBA programs. On the other hand, results of
previous studies regarding the usefulness of the GMAT-AWA score as
a predictor of academic success are inconsistent. Given the centrality
of communication skills, particularly writing competency, for managerial success and for achievement in graduate business programs, it
seemed important to further investigate the value of the GMAT-AWA
score as a predictor variable.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Subjects
The subjects in this study were graduate business students at a midsized
state university in the southwestern United States from 2006 to 2010
who had submitted their GMAT scores for admission to a graduate
business program (MBA, MS-Fin, or MS-Acc) and been admitted.
In addition, they had completed a managerial communication course
as part of their degree program, finishing with a grade of A, B, or C
(N = 240). The AWA score is not considered during the admission
process at this university, and some student applications did not include
it. Since both the score for the AWA section of the GMAT and a grade
for the managerial communication course were needed for this study,
39 student subjects did not qualify to be included in this study design.
Therefore, a total of 201 student subjects were used in this study. Our
college of business administration is fully accredited by the American
Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International).
Variables
For each graduate business student in this study, three variables were
compared: GMAT-AWA score, final grade in the managerial communication course, and grade on a writing assignment in the course. The writing
110 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
assignment is termed a memo makeover. Students select a poorly written
business message—memo, letter, or e-mail—and revise it. In addition
to the new version of the message, students compose a rationale for the
changes they have made to the original document. Students are evaluated on the extent to which they have demonstrated their ability to apply
the principles of good business writing, both in the revised message and
the rationale. The maximum number of points a student can earn for the
memo makeover assignment is 100. The total number of points possible
in the course is 700. The coauthors felt that this assignment most closely
resembles the critical thinking necessary to score well on the GMATAWA, as well as measuring sentence- and word-level language skills
and the student’s ability to develop and organize ideas by requiring the
composition of a complete piece of writing with a beginning, middle,
and end. A detailed description of the assignment and the rubric used
to evaluate it are found in Appendixes A and B.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
GMAT-AWA Score and Writing Assignment Score
To analyze the data, we used the SAS system (Version 9.2, SAS, Cary,
North Carolina). To determine if a relationship exists between the
score on the AWA (GMATSCORE) and the grade on the memo makeover writing assignment (WRITINGSCORE), a Pearson correlation
was run between the two continuous variables, GMATSCORE and
WRITINGSCORE. Results indicated these two scores were significantly
correlated (Pearson r = .26, p < .0002). Thus, there was a significant
relationship between students’ performance on the writing assignment
and their GMAT writing assessment score. Descriptive information on
the variables is shown in Table 1.
GMAT-AWA Score and Course Grade
Next we used the GLM (general linear model) procedure to test for
differences in the writing assessment portion of the GMAT (GMATSCORE)
with regard to the final grade students received in the managerial communication course (GBAGRADE). The results suggest that those who
received a grade of “A” in Managerial Communication had a mean
GMAT-AWA score (4.73) that was significantly higher than the GMATAWA score of those receiving a “C” (4.06) as seen in Table 2.
Hill et al. / GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS 111
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
N
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
GMATSCORE
WRITINGSCORE
201
4.54229
0.085700
2.5
6
201
88.79602
8.53482
59
100
Table 2. Means of GMATSCORES by Grade Categories
Duncan Grouping
A
Mean
N
GBAGRADE
4.7294
106
A
4.3663
86
B
4.0556
9
C
A
B
B
A
B
Table 3. R2 of General Linear Model Showing Differences in GMATSCORE
With GBAGRADE
R2
0.057118
Coefficient Var
Root Mean Square Error
GMATSCORE MEAN
18.41274
0.836360
4.542289
The mean GMATSCORE for those receiving a grade of “B” in
Managerial Communication (4.37) was not significantly different from
those receiving either an “A” or a “C.” Thus, the evidence suggests
that for A-students and C-students, the difference can be partially
explained by their different scores on the GMAT-AWA, as shown in
Table 2. However, the R2 of the GLM model was only .057, indicating
that only 5.7% of the variability in the GMATSCORE can be explained
by the grade categories, as illustrated in Table 3.
Writing Assignment Score and Course Grade
Next, a nonparametric measure of association, Spearman’s rho, was
computed to further investigate the possible relationship between the
students’ performance on the writing assignment and their final grade
in the managerial communication course. The resulting correlation
(r2 = .547, p < .005) suggests that students’ scores on the writing
112 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
Table 4. GMAT-AWA and Writing Assignment Mean Scores by Course Grade
GBAGRADE = A
Variable
Mean
GMATSCORE
WRITINGSCORE
4.73
93.05
Standard
Deviation
0.79
5.44
N = 106
GBAGRADE = B
Mean
4.37
84.72
Standard
Deviation
0.90
9.74
N = 86
GBAGRADE = C
Mean
Standard
Deviation
4.06
77.67
0.77
7.98
N=9
NOTE: GMAT-AWA = Graduate Management Admission Test–Analytical Writing
Assessment section.
assignment—the memo makeover—are significantly correlated with
the students’ final grade in the course (Table 3).
GMAT-AWA Score, Writing Assignment Score,
and Course Grade
An analysis was conducted to see the pattern of relationships among
GMAT-AWA scores and writing assignment scores across the various
course grades. As Table 4 shows, students who earned a grade of C
had a lower mean score on the GMAT-AWA (4.06) and a lower mean
score on the writing assignment (77.67) than students who earned a
grade of B (GMAT-AWA mean = 4.37, writing assignment mean =
84.72). The students who earned a grade of A in the course had the
highest mean score on the GMAT-AWA (4.73) and the writing assignment (93.05). Clearly, there was a steady progression in both GMATAWA and the writing assignment score as the students’ grade level
changed from C to A.
Finally, logistic regression was used to see if the course grade could
be predicted by GMAT-AWA score and the score on the writing assignment. For the purpose of this analysis, all nine subjects with a final
grade of “C” were eliminated from the data. The results showed that
the GMAT-AWA score did not attain significance in the model (Wald
χ2 = 2.08, p > .15). The score on the writing assignment, however,
was significant (Wald χ2 = 33.63, p < .0001). This result is consistent
with the data from the Spearman’s rho test, which showed a strong,
significant relationship between the students’ performance on the
writing assignment and their final grade in the course.
Hill et al. / GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS 113
DISCUSSION
Previous literature suggests that the GMAT provides predictive
value for success in a graduate business program. However, evidence
was limited regarding the GMAT-AWA’s power to predict students’
ability to complete assignments involving critical thinking and writing. This research partially fills that gap. The data reported in the
previous section show that the GMAT-AWA provides valuable information about a potential graduate business students’ future performance not only in writing assignments that are similar to the AWA,
but also in terms of the students’ final grade in a managerial communication course.
Typically, graduate students who score 4.0 or below on the GMATAWA do not perform well in graduate writing courses. It would
behoove graduate admissions personnel to look at the GMAT-AWA
score as well, rather than using only the GMAT total score. Other
studies conclude that the GMAT-AWA and the UGPA are predictors
of graduate academic performance. Based on this study, students’
GMAT-AWA score and their score on a writing assignment were
significantly correlated. Also, a Spearman correlation suggests that
students’ scores on a critical thinking writing assignment are significantly correlated with their final grade in a managerial communication
course.
As expected, the amount of variability in the data suggests that
many other factors play a role in student success. But our data allow
a case to be made for requiring the GMAT-AWA as an integral part of
students’ applications to graduate business programs since it correlates
with the likelihood of their achievement in at least one core course—
managerial communication. Furthermore, a case can be made for using
applicants’ GMAT-AWA score as a means of identifying entering
graduate business students who need to take a basic business communication or academic writing course. Given that students with a
wide range of undergraduate backgrounds seek admission to graduate
business programs, some students may not have acquired the foundation needed for success in graduate-level managerial communication
courses as well as some of the other MBA courses that require extensive writing and critical thinking.
114 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
Future research might examine the value of using the GMAT-AWA as
a benchmark for purposes of assessment. If the AWA were administered
on a pre- and postprogram schedule, changes in scores would provide
evidence for assurance of learning, specifically for improvements in
their managerial writing competency.
Future research might also examine the possible relationships
between the AWA score and performance in a number of the graduate
core courses in the MBA program. Since the AWA is supposed to test
students' critical thinking skills, it would be interesting to see if it
predicts success in any of the graduate core courses.
Appendix A
Memo Makeover Assignment
Purpose
This assignment will improve your composing and editing skills
regarding routine business documents. It will also sharpen your critical
analysis abilities.
Procedure
Select an already-existing memo, letter, or e-mail that you consider
poorly written. It may have been composed by anyone in a business
or organizational setting. It should be between one half and two pages
long. It need not be recent.
Consider the document’s purpose and audience. Analyze its strengths
and weaknesses.
Rewrite the document, applying the principles of good business
writing and document design that you are learning in this course. Use
a contemporary standard format for your letter or memo.
Explain your rationale for making the changes. Your rationale
should be just as well organized and well written as your revised
memo/letter/e-mail. In the rationale, include your observations about
the document’s intended audience, stated (and underlying) purpose(s),
relationship between audience and writer, organizational setting, tone,
level of formality, use of jargon, and any other reasons for the changes.
Simply pointing out the weaknesses of the original and listing your
changes is insufficient.
(continued)
Hill et al. / GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS 115
Appendix A (continued)
What to Submit
••
••
••
••
The original document
Your revised version
Your analysis and rationale
The rubric for this assignment
Appendix B
Memo Makeover Rubric
Name_________________________________________________________
Date__________________
Competency
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Rationale
____/25
Explanation of
revisions is
comprehensive
All relevant
principles of
business writing
are referenced
All reasons for
revisions are valid
Explanation of
revisions is adequate
All revisions are
well-justified
Rationale is wellorganized
Most revisions are
justified
Rationale’s
organization is
acceptable
Some design elements
are used, but
inadequate
Design elements are
used appropriately
(headings, bullets)
Letter/memo
format and
design
____/15
Font is attractive
and readable
Margins are
balanced, spacing
is correct
Bullets/numbers/
headings are used
effectively
Appropriate and
correct letter,
e-mail, or memo
format
Some principles of
business writing are
referenced
Most reasons for
revisions are valid
Font is wrong size or
style
Margins are mostly
balanced, spacing is
mostly correct
Bullets/numbers/
headings are used,
but incorrectly
Letter/e-mail/memo
format is appropriate
but elements are
incorrect or
incomplete
Below Expectations
Explanation of
revisions is
incomplete
Insufficient
references to
principles of
business writing
Too many reasons
for revisions are
invalid
Many revisions are
unjustifiable
Rationale is poorly
organized
No design elements
are used, or design
elements are wrong
Font style changes
within the doc
Margins are
unbalanced,
spacing is wrong
No bullets,
numbers, or
headings
Wrong
letter/e-mail/
memo format
(continued)
116 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
Appendix B (continued)
Competency
Exceeds Expectations
Letter/memo
organization
____/10
Opening tells the
purpose or the
buffer or
attention-getter
Info in body is
sequenced
logically
Paragraphs are
short, limited to a
single topic
Purpose statement is
misplaced
No purpose
statement
Sequence of info in
body is easy to follow
Sequence of info in
body is wrong
Some paragraphs are
too long
Closing includes a
clear, concrete
action item
Closing includes
sincere goodwill
Closing action item is
generic or vague
More than one
topic per
paragraph or no
topic sentence
No action item in
closing
Closing includes
minimal goodwill
No goodwill in
closing
Language suits the
audience
Action verbs and
concrete words
are used
throughout
You-view is used
throughout
Positive tone is
used throughout
No clichés or trite
expressions
Language level varies
Word choice is too
formal or casual
No action verbs or
concrete words
Some you-viewpoint is
used
Some negative
language
Some clichés or trite
expressions
No you-viewpoint;
no rapport
Tone is negative
throughout
Too many clichés or
trite expressions
Information is
complete
Information is
clear
Only relevant info
is included
Lots of concrete
details
Information is
correct
Information is
stated once
Information is
incomplete
Some information is
unclear
Some information is
irrelevant
Some concrete details
Too much info is
missing
Message is unclear
Some information is
incorrect
Some content is
repeated
Too much incorrect
information
Too much
redundant content
Sentence syntax is
correct
One fragment or
run-on sentence
Sentences are
concise
One to two wordy
expressions
Two or more
fragments or
run-on sentences
Sentences lack
conciseness
Letter/memo
diction and
tone
____/10
Letter/memo
content
____/25
Writing style
____/15
Meets Expectations
Some action verbs
and concrete words
are used
Below Expectations
Too much irrelevant
Information
No concrete details
(continued)
Hill et al. / GMAT-AWA SCORE AS A PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS 117
Appendix B (continued)
Competency
Exceeds Expectations
No passive voice
sentences
No spelling errors
Meets Expectations
Some passive voice
One spelling error
No mechanics
errors
No grammar errors
One mechanics error
One grammar error
No word-choice
errors
One-word choice
error
Below Expectations
Too much passive
voice
Two or more
spelling errors
Two or more
mechanics errors
Two or more
grammar errors
Two or more wordchoice errors
Total Points: ___________/100
References
Ahmadi, M., Raiszadeh, F., & Helms, M. (1997). An examination of the admissions criteria for
the MBA programs: A case study. Education, 117, 540-546.
Braunstein, A. (2002, September). Factors determining success in a graduate business program.
College Student Journal, 36, 471-477.
Carver, R., & King, T. (1994). An empirical investigation of the MBA admission criteria for
nontraditional programs. Journal of Education for Business, 20, 95-100.
Deckro, R. F., & Woundenberg, H. W. (1977). MBA admission criteria and academic success.
Decision Sciences, 8, 765-769.
Educational Testing Service. (2007). A comprehensive review of published GRE validity data.
Princeton, NJ: Author.
Gayle, J. B., & Jones, T. H. (1973). Admission standards for graduate study in management.
Decision Sciences, 4, 421-425.
Graduate Management Admission Council. (2010a). GMAT scores & score reports. Retrieved
from http://www.mba.com/mba/thegmat/gmatscoresandscorereports
Graduate Management Admission Council. (2010b). What the GMAT measures. Retrieved from
http://www.gmac.com/gmac/thegmat/gmatbasics/whatthegmatmeasures.htm
Noll, C. L., & Stowers, R. H. (1998). How MBA programs are using the GMAT’s analytical
writing assessment. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(4), 66-71.
Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1995a). What is the relevance of the GMAT analytical writing assessment for management education? Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 347-367.
Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1995b). What is the functional value of the GMAT analytical writing
for management education? Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 477-494.
Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1995c). The analytical writing assessment. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Graduate Management Admission Council Annual Conference, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1996a). The GMAT analytical writing assessment: Opportunity or
threat for management communication? Business Communication Quarterly, 59(2), 70-85.
Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1996b). The analytical writing assessment: Using the test for diagnostic purposes. Prepared for the Graduate Management Admission Council, McLean, VA.
Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (2001). Analytical tools to facilitate transitions into new writing
contexts: A communicative perspective. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 112-152.
118 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011
Siegert, K. O., & Guo, F. (2009, January). Assessing the reliability of GMAT analytical writing
assessment (GMAC Research Rep. No. RR-09-02). Retrieved from http://www.gmac.com/
NR/rdonlyres/09FA86D7-E571-49E0-A3E1-81F40C8FDB07/0/RR0902_AWAReliability.pdf
Sireci, S. G., & Talento-Miller, E. (2006, April). Evaluating the predictive validity of graduate
management admission test scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66,
305-317.
Sulaiman, A., & Mohezar, S. (2006). Student success factors: Identifying key predictors.
Journal of Education for Business, 81, 328-333.
Talento-Miller, E., & Rudner, L. M. (2008). The validity of Graduate Management Admission
Test scores: A summary of studies conducted from 1997 to 2004. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 129-138.
Talento-Miller, E., Siegert, K. O., & Talliaferro, H. (2010, May). Evaluating analytical writing
for admission to graduate business programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Education Research Association, Denver, CO.
Yang, B., & Lu, D. R. (2001, September). Predicting academic performance in management
education: An empirical investigation of MBA success. Journal of Education for Business,
77, 15-20.
Kathy L. Hill is an associate professor in the College of Business Administration, Sam
Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas. She teaches undergraduate and graduate
courses in business communication, intercultural business communication, business
and professional speaking, and managerial communication. Address correspondence
to Kathy L. Hill, College of Business Administration, PO Box 2056, Sam Houston State
University, Huntsville, TX 77341; email: [email protected].
Geraldine E. Hynes is a professor in the College of Business Administration, Sam Houston
State University, Huntsville, Texas, where she teaches business communication and
managerial communication. She is the author of Managerial Communication: Strategies
& Applications (2011) and is serving as the 2010-2011 President of the Association
for Business Communication. Address correspondence to Geraldine E. Hynes, College
of Business Administration, PO Box 2056, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville,
TX 77341; email: [email protected].
Marguerite P. Joyce is dean of faculty at Belhaven University, Houston, Texas. Address
correspondence to Marguerite P. Joyce, Belhaven University, 15115 Park Row, Suite 175
I, Houston, TX 77084; email: [email protected].
John S. Green is a full clinical professor of clinical and applied exercise physiology at the
Applied Exercise Science Laboratory in the Huffines Institute for Sports Medicine at Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas. He has taught graduate courses in research design
and statistics, instrumentation, and assessment. He serves as a manuscript editor for
Medscape General Medicine and as a board member for the Medical Science Monitor.
Address correspondence to John S. Green, Mailstop 4243, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX 77845; email: [email protected].
Copyright of Business Communication Quarterly is the property of Association for Business Communication
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.