Methods for the analysis of verbal reporting instruments - a comparison of different approaches

Sebastian P. Koch
{"title":"Methods for the analysis of verbal reporting instruments - a comparison of different approaches","authors":"Sebastian P. Koch","doi":"10.1504/IJCA.2016.10001382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quality of disclosures and other reporting instruments in written language cannot be measured directly. Based on the analysis of Spearman's rank correlation coefficients, this paper provides a comparison of different content analysis techniques by applying those to the reports regarding the internal control and risk management system relevant for the accounting process of the German DAX-30 companies for the fiscal year 2011. The results show that computerised measures lead to similar results as qualitative disclosure quality measures on a firm level (except for density of provided information). The exception for density might be driven by information overload or by the fact that the applied disclosure score does not capture all relevant information. However, on the item level the keyword analysis does not provide similar results as the disclosure score methodology. Therefore it seems to be indispensable to rely on researchers judgments if beyond disclosure quality on a firm level also the content should be examined.","PeriodicalId":343538,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Critical Accounting","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Critical Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCA.2016.10001382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The quality of disclosures and other reporting instruments in written language cannot be measured directly. Based on the analysis of Spearman's rank correlation coefficients, this paper provides a comparison of different content analysis techniques by applying those to the reports regarding the internal control and risk management system relevant for the accounting process of the German DAX-30 companies for the fiscal year 2011. The results show that computerised measures lead to similar results as qualitative disclosure quality measures on a firm level (except for density of provided information). The exception for density might be driven by information overload or by the fact that the applied disclosure score does not capture all relevant information. However, on the item level the keyword analysis does not provide similar results as the disclosure score methodology. Therefore it seems to be indispensable to rely on researchers judgments if beyond disclosure quality on a firm level also the content should be examined.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分析口头报告工具的方法-不同方法的比较
不能直接衡量书面语言披露和其他报告工具的质量。本文在分析Spearman等级相关系数的基础上,对德国DAX-30成分股公司2011财年会计流程相关的内部控制和风险管理制度报告进行了不同内容分析技术的比较。结果表明,在公司层面上,计算机化措施与定性披露质量措施的结果相似(除了所提供信息的密度)。密度的例外可能是由信息过载或应用的披露分数没有捕获所有相关信息这一事实所驱动的。然而,在项目层面上,关键词分析并没有提供与披露得分方法相似的结果。因此,除了公司层面的披露质量之外,还要对披露内容进行审查,依靠研究者的判断似乎是必不可少的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does corporate governance matter in the failures of listed home-grown banks A critical review of the 2018 conceptual framework of IASB: a shift towards the primary users of the GPFRs Understanding MSME-owned women entrepreneurs in Bangladesh: exploring motives, challenges, and success factors Increasing globalisation in accounting publications Accounting for e-commerce sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1