Analysis of the complexity of writing used in accounting textbooks over the past 100 years

Accounting Education

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 53-74

  Davidson, Ronald A ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST   (United States)

Author keywords

accounting textbooks; mental models; Readability; sentence complexity; word complexity

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248383898     PISSN: 09639284     EISSN: 14684489     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09639280410001695241     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC). 1990. Objectives of education for accountants: position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, 5 (Fall): 307–312.
2. Adelberg, A., and Razek, J., 1984. The Cloze procedure: a methodology for determining the understandability of accounting textbooks. The Accounting Review, 59 (1): 109–122.
3. Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co., Price Waterhouse and Touche Ross. 1989. Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession, New York: Arthur Andersen.
4. Bailin, A., and Grafstein, A., 2001. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Language & Communication, 21: 285–301.
5. Baker, E., 1988. “ Cognitive approaches to assessing the readability of text ”. In Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension, Edited by: Davison, A., and Green, G., 55–83. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Barry, S., and Lazarte, A., 1998. Evidence for mental models: how do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish?. The Modern Language Journal, 82: 176–193.
7. Beck, I., 1984. Improving the comprehensibility of stories: the effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19: 263–277.
8. Bell, J., and Johnson, R., 1992. Effect of lowering the reading level of a health education pamphlet on increasing comprehension by ESL adults. EDRS Retrieval Service: ED352854
9. Boatsman. 1994. Advanced Accounting, 7th edn, Boston, MA: Irwin.
10. Bormuth, J., 1966. Readability: a new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1: 79–132.
11. Botta, R., 1993. “ Does shorter mean easier to understand? A study of comprehension of USA Today information stories ”. EDRS Retrieval Service: ED361678
12. Chall, J., 1958. Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application, Columbus, OH: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.
13. Chall, J., 1977. An Analysis of Textbooks in Relation to Declining SAT Score, New York: College Board. (Report of the Advisory Panel on the Scholastic Aptitude Test Score Decline)
14. Charrow, V., 1988. “ Readability vs. comprehensibility: a case study in improving a real document ”. In Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension, Edited by: Davison, A., and Green, G., 85–114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Coulson, A., 1996. Schooling and literacy over time: the rising cost of stagnation and decline. Research in the Teaching of English, 30 (October): 311–327.
16. Courtis, J., 1995. Readability of annual reports: Western versus Asian evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8 (2): 4–17.
17. Courtis, J., 1997. Annual report readability variability: tests of the obfuscation hypothesis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11 (4): 459–471.
18. Davidson, R., 2000. Using linguistic performance to measure problem-solving. Accounting Education, 9 (1): 53–66.
19. Davison, A., 1984. “ Readability formulas and comprehension ”. In Comprehension Instruction: Perspectives and Suggestions, Edited by: G., Duffy. 128–143. New York: Longman.
20. Davison, A., and Kantor, R., 1982. On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: a case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (2): 187–209.
21. Dickinson, A., 1917. Accounting Practice Procedure, New York: Ronald Press.
22. Duffy, T., and Kabance, P., 1982. Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (5): 733–747.
23. Flory, S., 1992. Measuring readability: a comparison of accounting textbooks. Journal of Accounting Education, 10 (1): 151–161.
24. Green, G., and Olsen, M., 1988. “ Preferences for and comprehension of original and readability adapted materials ”. In Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension, Edited by: Davison, A., and Green, G., 115–140. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Hattiangadi, J., 1987. How is Language Possible?, La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing.
26. Hayes, D., 1996. Schoolbook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (2): 489–508.
27. Holland, J., 1986. Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning and Discovery, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Hoskin, R., 1997. Financial Accounting: A User Perspective, 2nd edn, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
29. Jones, M., 1996. Readability of annual reports: Western versus Asian evidence—a comment to contextualize. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9 (2): 86–91.
30. Jones, M., and Shoemaker, P., 1994. Accounting narratives: a review of empirical studies of content and readability. Journal of Accounting Literature, 13: 142–184.
31. Just, M., and Carpenter, P., 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99: 122–149.
32. Kemper, S., 1988. “ Inferential complexity and the readability of texts ”. In Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension, Edited by: Davison, A., and Green, G., 141–166. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. King, J., and Just, M., 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 580–602.
34. Klare, G., 1963. The Measurement of Readability, Ames, IO: Iowa State University Press.
35. Lewis, N., 1986. Accounting report readability: the use of readability techniques. Accounting and Business Research, 17 (2): 199–213.
36. Patyal, C., 1978. A study of the effect of low and high readability materials in geography on reading comprehension. Asian Journal of Psychology and Education, 3 (3): 17–21.
37. Pettersson, R., 1993. Comprehensibility. The International Symposium of the International Visual Literacy Association. 1993, Delphi, Greece. Paper presented at
38. Ravitch, D., 2000. Left Back, New York: Simon & Schuster.
39. Razek, J., 1982. Readability of accounting textbooks. Journal of Business Education, (October): 23–26.
40. Ristad, E., 1993. The Language Complexity Game, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Smith, M., and Taffler, R., 1992. Readability and understandability: different measures of the textual complexity of accounting narrative. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 5 (4): 84–98.
42. Sobran, J., 2001. The moving picture. The Real News of the Month, 8 (4) accessed September 15, 2004 http://www.sobran.com/issuetexts/2001-04.htm
43. Sommers, C., 2000. The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men, New York: Simon & Schuster.
44. Soulé, G., 1903. Soule's New Science and Practice of Accounts, 7th edn, New Orleans, LA: Soule Publishing.
45. Sullivan, M., and Benke, R., 1997. Comparing introductory financial accounting textbooks. Journal of Accounting Education, 15 (2): 181–220.
46. Traugh, H., and Powers, O., 1987. Readability of accounting principles texts. Journal of Education for Business, 63 (1): 159–162.