Accountant's Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis

Brierley, John A.

doi:10.1006/bare.1998.0080

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of conducting meta-analysis is further justified because there has been less such research in the accounting discipline. Pomeroy and Thornton (2007) identify 14 previous meta-analyses in the accounting discipline on internal control judgment (Trotman and Wood, 1991), accountants' job satisfaction (Brierley, 1999), corporate characteristics and disclosure levels (Ahmed and Courtis, 1999), corporate social and financial performance (Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003), and audit fees (Hay, Knechel and Wong, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐Audit Service Fees and Financial Reporting Quality: A Meta‐Analysis

Habib

2012

Abacus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditing as a corporate governance mechanism has attracted considerable research attention. Because of the information asymmetry between corporate managers and outside shareholders, auditors are hired to provide independent assurance that financial statements are prepared following generally accepted accounting principles. The credibility of such assurance depends on the independence, both in fact and in appearance, of the auditor. Over the years, however, the independence of auditors has come under increased scrutiny because of their joint provision of both audit and non‐audit services. A sizable literature on the impact of non‐audit fees on financial reporting quality has developed. The evidence from this literature, however, remains inconclusive. This paper provides a meta‐analysis of the available literature by assessing (a) the net effect of non‐audit fees on financial reporting quality, and (b) whether there is homogeneity in the financial reporting quality proxies used in the extant literature. Findings suggest that the level of client‐specific non‐audit fees is associated with reduced financial reporting quality. However, the underlying studies used to conduct this meta‐analysis are not homogenous.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐Audit Service Fees and Financial Reporting Quality: A Meta‐Analysis

Habib

2012

Abacus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hunter et al (1982) and Hunter and Schmidt (2000) have been widely applied in financial reporting (Garcia-Meca & Sanchez-Ballesta, 2006;Khlif & Souissi, 2010;Ahmed & Coutis, 1999;Souissi & Khlif, 2012;Ahmed et al, 2013;Khlif & Hussainey, 2014) and corporate governance and accounting quality (Garcia-Meca & Sanchez-Ballesta, 2009;Garcia-Meca & Sanchez-Ballesta, 2010). It has also been employed in some auditing, management accounting, and miscellaneous accounting meta-analyses (Trotman & Wood, 1991;Greenberg et al, 1994;Borkowski, 1996;Brierley, 1999;Dole & Schroeder, 2001). M a n u s c r i p t 11 This prevalent approach is based on three steps to analyze meta-analytic data (Hunter et al, 1982).…”

Section: Statistical Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…These statistics are then converted to an effect size measure as discussed above. Only five of the meta-analysis studies reviewed do not use correlation metrics (Borkowski, 1996;Brierley, 1999;Fifka, 2013;Dole & Schroeder, 2001;Thornton, 1994) and these studies are primarily in the miscellaneous topic category.…”

Section: Dataset Preparationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These metaanalytic reviews were followed by a meta-analysis of studies on multinational transfer pricing (Borkowski, 1996). The remaining two pre-2000 meta-analytic accounting studies are Ahmed and Courtis (1999) and Brierley (1999) with the former focusing on determinants of firm disclosure and the latter on accountants' job satisfaction.…”

Section: The Historical Development Of Meta-analytic Accounting Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of meta-analytic research in accounting

Khlif

Chalmers

2015

Journal of Accounting Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Khlif, H., and Chalmers, K.,A review of metaanalytic research in accounting, Journal of Accounting Literature (2015), http://dx. AbstractThis study reviews the use of meta-analysis in accounting research. We categorize the metaanalytic research into five topics: financial reporting, auditing, corporate governance and accounting quality, management accounting, and miscellaneous topics. Further, we classify the studies by the meta-analysis technique employed: Hunter et al. (1982) and Hunter and Schmidt (2000), Lipsey and Wilson (2001), and Stouffer's approach. We identify 27 meta-analytical studies over the period 1985-2014 with financial reporting (auditing) topics representing seven (six) of these studies. Our review highlights that meta-analytic methods are being applied and accepted, more frequently, to answer complex questions concerning the moderating effects of country-level variables, such as national culture, economic conditions, and institutional characteristics, on various associations of interest. Acknowledgements:We thank Stephen Kwaku Asare (editor), an anonymous referee, and participants at the 2015 AFAANZ conference for their helpful comments and suggestions.

show abstract

“…38 In this regard, Pomeroy and Thornton (2008) identified only 33 existing meta-studies on an 35 For more information on these variables, see Tang (2015), p. 449f. 36 Using meta-analysis techniques, the variance that is due to inherent differences between different correlations or moderator variables can be distinguished from the variance that is due to statistical artifacts (sampling or measurement error), see Brierly (1999). 37 For examples, see Feld and Heckemeyer (2011);Feld et al (2013).…”

Section: Purpose Of Meta-analysis and Meta-studies In Accountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Implications of Book-Tax Differences: A Meta-Analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp17003.pdf Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar. Terms of use: Documents inDis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. The Implications of Book-Tax Differences: A Meta-AnalysisMaria Theresia Evers*, Ina Meier**, Katharina Nicolay*** November 2016 AbstractOver the last decade, a large body of tax accounting literature on the association between book-tax conformity (BTC)/book-tax differences (BTD) and firms' opportunistic reporting behavior has emerged. Yet, existing empirical evidence on the questions whether increased book-tax conformity actually reduces Earnings Management (EM) and/or Tax Sheltering (TS) and whether book-tax differences are really indicative of such opportunistic reporting behavior is not yet clear. We therefore conduct a meta-analysis aimed at identifying the sources of heterogeneity in primary studies and at providing a consensus estimate with respect to the sign and the statistical significance level for the examined association. Our qualitative literature review reveals that major sources of heterogeneity in the study design include differences in the proxies for EM and TS and in the measures used to determine BTD and BTC. Our meta-regression results show that BTD are indeed indicative of opportunistic reporting behavior, and even more so of EM. These results are, however, weaker for studies that determine BTD only roughly as the difference between book and estimated taxable income instead of using more specific BTD proxies. Moreover, examining actual BTD computed from tax returns instead of only approximating these from financial statements strongly increases the effects. Hence, efforts taken to accurately determine BTD seem to be worth wile when it comes to the explanatory power for opportunistic reporting. Furthermore, our results suggest a negative association between book-tax conformity and EM/TS, which we interpret as an indicator for higher conformity indeed being effective in reducing aggressive reporting.JEL Classificat...

show abstract

Accountant's Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis

Cited by 31 publications

References 27 publications

Non‐Audit Service Fees and Financial Reporting Quality: A Meta‐Analysis

Non‐Audit Service Fees and Financial Reporting Quality: A Meta‐Analysis

A review of meta-analytic research in accounting

The Implications of Book-Tax Differences: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About