A Q factor analysis of college undergraduate students' study behaviors

The purpose of this study was to better understand the study behaviors and habits of university undergraduate students. It was designed to determine whether undergraduate students could be grouped based on their self-reported study behaviors and if any grouping system could be determined, whether group membership was related to students’ academic achievement. A total of 152 undergraduate students voluntarily participated in the current study by completing the Study Behavior Inventory instrument. All participants were enrolled in fall semester of 2010 at Florida International University. The Q factor analysis technique using principal components extraction and a varimax rotation was used in order to examine the participants in relation to each other and to detect a pattern of intercorrelations among participants based on their self-reported study behaviors. The Q factor analysis yielded a two factor structure representing two distinct student types among participants regarding their study behaviors. The first student type (i.e., Factor 1) describes proactive learners who organize both their study materials and study time well. Type 1 students are labeled “Proactive Learners with Well-Organized Study Behaviors”. The second type (i.e., Factor 2) represents students who are poorly organized as well as being very likely to procrastinate. Type 2 students are labeled Disorganized Procrastinators. Hierarchical linear regression was employed to examine the relationship between student type and academic achievement as measured by current grade point averages (GPAs). The results showed significant differences in GPAs between Type 1 and Type 2 students at the .05 significance level. Furthermore, student type was found to be a significant predictor of academic achievement beyond and above students’ attribute variables including sex, age, major, and enrollment status. The study has several implications for educational researchers, practitioners, and policy makers in terms of improving college students' learning behaviors and outcomes.

Three essays on the microstructure of exchange traded funds

Exchange traded funds (ETFs) have increased significantly in popularity since they were first introduced in 1993. However, there is still much that is unknown about ETFs in the extant literature. This dissertation attempts to fill gaps in the ETF literature by using three related essays. In these three essays, we compare ETFs to closed ended mutual funds (CEFs) by decomposing the bid-ask spread into its three components; we look at the intraday shape of ETFs and compare it to the intraday shape of equities as well as examine the co-integration factor between ETFs on the London Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange; we also examine the differences between leveraged ETFs and unleveraged ETFs by analyzing the impact of liquidity and volatility. These three essays are presented in Chapters 1, 2, and 3, respectively. ^ Chapter one uses the Huang and Stoll (1997) model to decompose the bid-ask spread in CEFs and ETFs for two distinct periods—a normal and a volatile period. We show a higher adverse selection component for CEFs than for ETFs without regard to volatility. However, both ETFs and CEFs increased in magnitude of the adverse selection component in the period of high volatility. Chapter two uses a mix of the Werner and Kleidon (1993) and the Hupperets and Menkveld (2002) methods to get the intraday shape of ETFs and analyze co-integration between London and New York trading. We find two different shapes for New York and London ETFs. There also appears to be evidence of co-integration in the overlapping two-hour trading period but not over the entire trading day for the two locations. The third chapter discusses the new class of ETFs called leveraged ETFs. We examine the liquidity and depth differences between unleveraged and leveraged ETFs at the aggregate level and when the leveraged ETFs are classified by the leveraged multiples of -3, -2, -1, 2, and 3, both for a normal and a volatile period. We find distinct differences between leveraged and unleveraged ETFs at the aggregate level, with leveraged ETFs having larger spreads than unleveraged ETFs. Furthermore, while both leveraged and unleveraged ETFs have larger spreads in high volatility, for the leveraged ETFs the change in magnitude is significantly larger than for the unleveraged ETFs. Among the multiples, the -2 leveraged ETF is the most pronounced in its liquidity characteristics, more so in volatile times. ^