IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accted/v35y2026i3p351-374.html

Readability of professional accounting examinations – evidence from South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Masibulele Phesa
  • Tesfaye T. Lemma
  • Reon Matemane

Abstract

The South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA), the preeminent professional accounting body in South Africa, administers two staggered sequential qualifying examinations – the Initial Test of Competency (ITC) and the Assessment of Professional Competency (APC) – to licence candidates as chartered accountants. Analysing the readability of the exams using the Gunning Fog Reading Index (GFRI) and Flesch Readability Ease Index (FREI), we find that both exams are difficult to read. We also find that the ITC exams are more difficult to read than the APC exams. These findings hold even when different parts of the exam are considered separately. While a difficult level of readability might be necessary to at least some extent due to the technical nature of the content being assessed, our findings raise concerns about potential construct-irrelevant variance (CIV), which could impact the validity, fairness, and reliability of the qualifying exams. Considering that a substantial portion of the candidates are non-native English speakers, these findings highlight the potential role of readability in ensuring equitable access to the chartered accountancy profession.

Suggested Citation

  • Masibulele Phesa & Tesfaye T. Lemma & Reon Matemane, 2026. "Readability of professional accounting examinations – evidence from South Africa," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 351-374, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:accted:v:35:y:2026:i:3:p:351-374
    DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2025.2480550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09639284.2025.2480550
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09639284.2025.2480550?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:accted:v:35:y:2026:i:3:p:351-374. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAED20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.