Can ChatGPT Be a Certified Accountant? Assessing the Responses of ChatGPT for the Professional Access Exam in Portugal

IF 3 Q2 MANAGEMENT Administrative Sciences Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.3390/admsci14070152
Fabio Albuquerque, Paula Gomes dos Santos
{"title":"Can ChatGPT Be a Certified Accountant? Assessing the Responses of ChatGPT for the Professional Access Exam in Portugal","authors":"Fabio Albuquerque, Paula Gomes dos Santos","doi":"10.3390/admsci14070152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: From an exploratory perspective, this paper aims to assess how well ChatGPT scores in an accounting proficiency exam in Portugal, as well as its overall understanding of the issues, purpose and context underlying the questions under assessment. Design/methodology/approach: A quasi-experimental method is used in this study. The questions from an exam by the Portuguese Order of Chartered Accountants (OCC, in the Portuguese acronym) served as input queries, while the responses (outputs) from ChatGPT were compared with those from the OCC. Findings: The findings indicate that ChatGPT’s responses were able to deduce the primary issue underlying the matters assessed, although some responses were inaccurate or imprecise. Also, the tool did not have the same score in all matters, being less accurate in those requiring more professional judgment. The findings also show that the ChatGPT did not pass the exam, although it was close to doing so. Originality: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is little research on ChatGPT accuracy in accounting proficiency exams, this being the first such study in Portugal. Practical implications: The findings from this research can be useful to accounting professionals to understand how ChatGPT may be used for practitioners, stressing that it could assist them and improve efficiency, but cannot, at least for now, replace the human professional. It also highlights the potential use of ChatGPT as an additional resource in the classroom, encouraging students to engage in critical thinking and facilitating open discussion with the guidance of teachers. Consequently, it can also prove beneficial for academic purposes, aiding in the learning process.","PeriodicalId":30376,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14070152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: From an exploratory perspective, this paper aims to assess how well ChatGPT scores in an accounting proficiency exam in Portugal, as well as its overall understanding of the issues, purpose and context underlying the questions under assessment. Design/methodology/approach: A quasi-experimental method is used in this study. The questions from an exam by the Portuguese Order of Chartered Accountants (OCC, in the Portuguese acronym) served as input queries, while the responses (outputs) from ChatGPT were compared with those from the OCC. Findings: The findings indicate that ChatGPT’s responses were able to deduce the primary issue underlying the matters assessed, although some responses were inaccurate or imprecise. Also, the tool did not have the same score in all matters, being less accurate in those requiring more professional judgment. The findings also show that the ChatGPT did not pass the exam, although it was close to doing so. Originality: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is little research on ChatGPT accuracy in accounting proficiency exams, this being the first such study in Portugal. Practical implications: The findings from this research can be useful to accounting professionals to understand how ChatGPT may be used for practitioners, stressing that it could assist them and improve efficiency, but cannot, at least for now, replace the human professional. It also highlights the potential use of ChatGPT as an additional resource in the classroom, encouraging students to engage in critical thinking and facilitating open discussion with the guidance of teachers. Consequently, it can also prove beneficial for academic purposes, aiding in the learning process.
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
ChatGPT 可以成为注册会计师吗?评估 ChatGPT 对葡萄牙专业准入考试的反应
目的:本文从探索的角度出发,旨在评估 ChatGPT 在葡萄牙会计能力考试中的得分情况,以及其对所评估问题背后的问题、目的和背景的整体理解。设计/方法/途径:本研究采用准实验方法。葡萄牙特许会计师协会(OCC,葡萄牙语缩写)的考试题目作为输入查询,而 ChatGPT 的回答(输出)则与 OCC 的回答(输出)进行比较。结果:结果表明,ChatGPT 的回复能够推断出所评估事项背后的主要问题,尽管有些回复不准确或不精确。此外,该工具并非在所有事项上都有相同的得分,在需要更多专业判断的事项上准确性较低。研究结果还表明,尽管 ChatGPT 接近通过考试,但并未通过考试。原创性:据作者所知,有关 ChatGPT 在会计能力考试中准确性的研究很少,这是葡萄牙的首次此类研究。实际意义:这项研究的结果有助于会计专业人员了解如何将 ChatGPT 用于从业人员,同时强调 ChatGPT 可以帮助他们并提高效率,但至少目前还不能取代人类专业人员。它还强调了 ChatGPT 作为课堂额外资源的潜在用途,鼓励学生进行批判性思考,并在教师的指导下促进公开讨论。因此,它也可以证明有利于学术目的,有助于学习过程。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ensuring Sustainability: Leadership Approach Model for Tackling Procurement Challenges in Bulgarian Higher Education Institutions The Potential of AI in Performing Financial Sentiment Analysis for Predicting Entrepreneur Survival The Impact of Paradoxical Leadership on Employee Knowledge-Sharing Behavior: The Role of Trust in the Leader and Employee Promotive Voice Behavior Gravity Model and International Trade: A Survey of the Literature A Model of Public Sector E-Services Development Efficiency as a Sustainable Competitive Advantage
×
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