Author
Abstract
Purpose - University Accountancy faculty need criteria to assist with the selection of textbooks, to ensure that the subject matter is congruent with the level at which students are taught. Readability is one such criterion. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability of two Managerial Accounting and two Financial Management textbooks, using three different readability evaluation methods. Design/methodology/approach - The sample for the study included 281 Accounting students from an Eastern seaboard university. Each student was requested to complete two passages – one from a Management Accounting textbook and one from a Financial Management textbook. The Gunning Fog Index, Flesch Reading Ease and Cloze Procedure readability evaluation methods were used to measure readability. Findings - The findings suggest varying levels of readability among the textbooks. Results from the Cloze Procedure reveal that three of the four textbooks were being read at theFrustration Leveland the fourth marginally above theFrustration Level.The readability formulae returned varying results demonstrating that some of the textbooks were at a level that the students ought to be able to read. Research limitations/implications - Only two Managerial Accounting and two Financial Management textbooks of many published were assessed, and only three readability evaluation methods were used. Social implications - The findings have implications for university faculty, authors, publishers, editors and students. Originality/value - The readability of Managerial Accounting and Financial Management textbooks used at South African universities, has received scant attention in the literature. The analysis of the readability of the accounting textbooks, presents a synthesis that adds important knowledge in this under‐researched topic.
Suggested Citation
Karen Bargate, 2012.
"The readability of Managerial Accounting and Financial Management textbooks,"
Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(1), pages 4-20, June.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:medarp:v:20:y:2012:i:1:p:4-20
DOI: 10.1108/10222521211234192
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:medarp:v:20:y:2012:i:1:p:4-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.