SAICA认证大学审计教学干预问卷的编制、验证和标准化

IF 0.6 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH South African Journal of Higher Education Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.20853/37-2-4862
O. Stumke, A. Moolman, V. Leendertz
{"title":"SAICA认证大学审计教学干预问卷的编制、验证和标准化","authors":"O. Stumke, A. Moolman, V. Leendertz","doi":"10.20853/37-2-4862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Questionnaires are widely used in the Accountancy field as a data collection instrument. However, previous studies have contentious views on the reliability of questionnaires in academic studies. This study describes the development of a custom-made questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of a teaching-learning intervention, the Audit Cube, designed to affect the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Auditing of B.Com. honours students in the Accountancy field at a SAICA-accredited university. The questionnaire was distributed to 156 university honours students, whereafter it was validated and standardised. Most of the extracted factors indicated a reliability level higher than 0.9, signifying that the constructs were suitable to address the project’s research question and that the questionnaire is valid. In conclusion, this study found that the use of questionnaires in academic studies is deemed reliable if a standardised process is followed in its development. Consequently, the study suggests that custom-made questionnaires should undergo factor analysis to prove the instrument’s validity prior to reporting on the findings. The findings of this study may be useful to academics in providing guidelines in developing their own data collection instrument to measure the effectiveness of a teaching-learning intervention and may also support the use of questionnaires by researchers in the teaching-learning environment.","PeriodicalId":44786,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Higher Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The development, validation and standardisation of a questionnaire measuring an Auditing teaching-learning intervention at a SAICA-accredited university\",\"authors\":\"O. Stumke, A. Moolman, V. Leendertz\",\"doi\":\"10.20853/37-2-4862\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Questionnaires are widely used in the Accountancy field as a data collection instrument. However, previous studies have contentious views on the reliability of questionnaires in academic studies. This study describes the development of a custom-made questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of a teaching-learning intervention, the Audit Cube, designed to affect the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Auditing of B.Com. honours students in the Accountancy field at a SAICA-accredited university. The questionnaire was distributed to 156 university honours students, whereafter it was validated and standardised. Most of the extracted factors indicated a reliability level higher than 0.9, signifying that the constructs were suitable to address the project’s research question and that the questionnaire is valid. In conclusion, this study found that the use of questionnaires in academic studies is deemed reliable if a standardised process is followed in its development. Consequently, the study suggests that custom-made questionnaires should undergo factor analysis to prove the instrument’s validity prior to reporting on the findings. The findings of this study may be useful to academics in providing guidelines in developing their own data collection instrument to measure the effectiveness of a teaching-learning intervention and may also support the use of questionnaires by researchers in the teaching-learning environment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal of Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal of Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20853/37-2-4862\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20853/37-2-4862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问卷调查作为一种数据收集工具在会计领域被广泛使用。然而,以往的研究对学术研究中问卷的信度存在争议。本研究描述了一个定制问卷的开发,以评估教学干预的有效性,审计立方体,旨在影响B.Com审计的知识,技能,态度和价值观。在saica认可的大学中,向会计领域的学生授予荣誉。调查问卷被分发给156名大学优等生,然后对其进行验证和标准化。大部分提取因子的信度水平均高于0.9,表明所构建的结构适合解决项目的研究问题,表明问卷是有效的。综上所述,本研究发现,在学术研究中使用问卷是可靠的,如果在其开发过程中遵循标准化的过程。因此,研究表明,定制的问卷应进行因子分析,以证明工具的有效性之前报告的发现。本研究的发现可能对学者提供指导,以发展他们自己的数据收集工具来衡量教学干预的有效性,也可能支持研究人员在教学环境中使用问卷调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The development, validation and standardisation of a questionnaire measuring an Auditing teaching-learning intervention at a SAICA-accredited university
Questionnaires are widely used in the Accountancy field as a data collection instrument. However, previous studies have contentious views on the reliability of questionnaires in academic studies. This study describes the development of a custom-made questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of a teaching-learning intervention, the Audit Cube, designed to affect the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Auditing of B.Com. honours students in the Accountancy field at a SAICA-accredited university. The questionnaire was distributed to 156 university honours students, whereafter it was validated and standardised. Most of the extracted factors indicated a reliability level higher than 0.9, signifying that the constructs were suitable to address the project’s research question and that the questionnaire is valid. In conclusion, this study found that the use of questionnaires in academic studies is deemed reliable if a standardised process is followed in its development. Consequently, the study suggests that custom-made questionnaires should undergo factor analysis to prove the instrument’s validity prior to reporting on the findings. The findings of this study may be useful to academics in providing guidelines in developing their own data collection instrument to measure the effectiveness of a teaching-learning intervention and may also support the use of questionnaires by researchers in the teaching-learning environment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
South African Journal of Higher Education
South African Journal of Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
28.60%
发文量
38
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Decentralised systemising of Scholarship of Engagement in higher education towards societal impact Pedagogical dilemma in teacher education: Bridging the theory practice gap An auto ethnographic reflection of service learning: A higher education perspective The development, validation and standardisation of a questionnaire measuring an Auditing teaching-learning intervention at a SAICA-accredited university Active learning in an online postgraduate research module: Perceptions of accounting students and lecturers
×
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