A review of an article to evaluate one of its arguments: for Accounting and Finance students 02

A review of an article to evaluate one of its arguments: for Accounting and Finance students [information from chatpdf.com]

The article reviewed is: "Auditors’ perceptions of alternative performance measures –

alternative truths and professional skepticism" Accounting in Europe

My question 1: "What are the research objectives of the article?"

The reply: "The article outlines the following research objectives:

1. RQ1: To investigate how auditors perceive alternative performance measures (APMs) in financial reporting.
2. RQ2: To explore how professional skepticism (PS) explains skeptical behavior and trust related to APMs.
3. RQ3: To examine the relationship between trait skepticism and state skepticism in the context of APMs.

These objectives aim to deepen the understanding of auditors' perceptions and behaviors regarding APMs and their professional skepticism."

My question 2: "What are the research methods employed in the study as reported in the article?"

The reply: "The study employed the following research methods:

1. Survey Methodology: A nationwide survey was conducted among Finnish certified public auditors (N = 220) to gather descriptive data on their views regarding alternative performance measures (APMs) and professional skepticism.

2. Online Survey Instrument: The survey included statements related to APMs and professional skepticism, measured on a five-point Likert scale. This instrument aimed to capture auditor perspectives, particularly in cases where APMs diverged from official financial statements.

3. Measurement of State Skepticism: The researchers developed a novel instrument to measure state skepticism specifically in the context of APMs, deriving constructs from prior literature and expert discussions.

4. Data Analysis: The collected data were analyzed using factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) to assess the relationships between professional skepticism and auditors' perceptions of APMs , , .

These methods allowed for a comprehensive examination of the auditors' attitudes and behavioral patterns concerning APMs in an auditing context."

My question 3: "Could you give me one concrete example of an argument in the article, indicating its "backings", "warrants", "qualifiers", "grounds", "rebuttals" and "claims" in terms of the Toulmin argument model?"

The reply: "Certainly! Let's break down an argument from the article using the Toulmin argument model components: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal.

Example Argument: Claim: Auditors hold positive views of alternative performance measures (APMs) despite the associated risks.

• Claim: Auditors' perceptions of APMs are generally positive, indicating that they see value in these measures.

• Grounds: The study found that Finnish auditors respond positively towards APMs in their assessments and reporting practices, as indicated by survey results .

• Warrant: Positive perceptions suggest that auditors believe APMs can provide useful additional insights beyond official financial statements, reflecting a balance between skepticism and trust.

• Backing: The research cites previous studies indicating that APMs can enhance the understanding of a company's performance when used appropriately (Becker et al., 1998; Hurtt, 2010) , .

• Qualifier: Generally, the results are applicable, but there is a caution that the positive perception might not hold across all contexts or auditor characteristics.

• Rebuttal: While auditors may view APMs positively, there are circumstances where strong divergence from IFRS results could prompt concerns about potential earnings management and the associated audit risks , .

This structure shows how the argument for the positive perception of APMs is supported while acknowledging limitations and potential criticisms."

My question 4: "Does the example of the argument address any of the research objectives of the article?"

The reply: "Yes, the example of the argument directly addresses one of the research objectives of the article. Specifically, it relates to the first research question:

RQ1: "How do auditors perceive alternative performance measures in financial reporting?"

The claim that auditors hold positive views of APMs is an essential part of answering this research question. The grounds provided, which refer to the survey findings indicating positive auditor responses toward APMs, align with the objective of understanding these perceptions.

Moreover, the warrant, backing, and qualifier provide nuances that help explain why auditors may perceive APMs positively, contributing to a thorough exploration of their attitudes in the context of financial reporting and professional skepticism . The rebuttal also enriches the discussion by addressing potential concerns related to APMs, thereby offering a well-rounded view of auditors' perspectives in light of the broader objective of the study.

Overall, this argument exemplifies how the study aims to investigate and elucidate auditors' perceptions of APMs."

Reference: a collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.