Establishing valid and reliable passing scores is a vital activity for any examination used to make classification decisions. Although there are many different approaches to setting passing scores, this thesis is focused specifically on the Angoff standard setting method. The Angoff method is a test-centric classical test theory based approach to estimating performance standards. In the Angoff method each judge estimates the proportion of minimally competent examinees who will answer each item correctly. These values are summed across items and averages across judges to arrive at a recommended passing score. Unfortunately, research has shown that the Angoff method has a number of limitations which have the potential to undermine both the validity and reliability of the resulting standard. Many of the limitations of the Angoff method can be linked to its grounding in classical test theory. The purpose of this study is to determine if the limitations of the Angoff could be mitigated by a transition to an item response theory (IRT) framework. Item response theory is a modern measurement model for relating examinees' latent ability to their observed test performance. Theoretically the transition to an IRT-based Angoff method could result in more accurate, stable, and efficient passing scores. The methodology for the study was divided into three studies designed to assess the potential advantages of using an IRT-based Angoff method. Study one examined the effect of allowing judges to skip unfamiliar items during the ratings process. The goal of this study was to detect if passing scores are artificially biased due to deficits in the content experts' specific item level content knowledge. Study two explored the potential benefit of setting passing scores on an adaptively selected subset of test items. This study attempted to leverage IRT's score invariance property to more efficiently estimate passing scores. Finally study three compared IRT-based standards to traditional Angoff standards using a simulation study. The goal of this study was to determine if passing scores set using the IRT Angoff method had greater stability and accuracy than those set using the common True Score Angoff method. Together these three studies examined the potential advantages of an IRT-based approach to setting passing scores. The results indicate that the IRT Angoff method does not produce more reliable passing score than the common Angoff method. The transition to the IRT-based approach, however, does effectively ameliorate two sources of systematic error in the common Angoff method. The first source of error is brought on by requiring that all judges rate all items and the second source is introduced during the transition from test to scaled score passing scores. By eliminating these sources of error the IRT-based method allows for accurate and unbiased estimation of the judges' true opinion of the ability of the minimally capable examinee. Although all of the theoretical benefits of the IRT Angoff method could not be demonstrated empirically, the results of this thesis are extremely encouraging. The IRT Angoff method was shown to eliminate two sources of systematic error resulting in more accurate passing scores. In addition this thesis provides a strong foundation for a variety of studies with the potential to aid in the selection, training, and evaluation of content experts. Overall findings from this thesis suggest that the application of IRT to the Angoff standard setting method has the potential to offer significantly more valid passing scores.

Background: Providing examinee performance data is a common procedural modification in modified-Angoff standard setting exercises. Results of research examining the impact of the practice are mixed, and despite the frequency with which this procedural modification is done, the overall impact on the outcomes is not well understood. This research presents a large-scale evaluation of the impact of providing performance data in the context of operational standard setting exercises for a medical licensing examination program. Methods: Data from a total of 18 independent standard setting panels across three different examinations were analyzed to evaluate whether and how the provision of performance information impacted the resulting cut scores. Results: Significant cut-score changes were found between initial and final judgments for all panels. A decrease in standard deviation between initial and final judgments for all panels was indicative of the convergence of judgments following the provision of data, and a lack of systematic changes in final cut scores suggested that judges were not simply changing their content-based judgments to align with the normative data. Both findings provide important procedural validity evidence for the standard setting process. Implications: The current data set (replications of the procedure within a single cycle, across cycles for an individual examination, and across multiple examinations) allowed for the most comprehensive evaluation of this topic that has been described to date and provides valuable insight into an issue that is relevant to many testing contexts. / Educational Psychology

In this paper preparers’ and non-preparers’ positions regarding accounting for goodwill are examined through studying submitted comment letters on ED3 ‘Business Combinations’. Preparers have, because of economic consequences, incentives to lobby for the non-amortisation approach and non-preparers for the amortisation approach. As hypothesised, non-preparers are found to support amortisation of goodwill to a greater extent than do preparers. Moreover, the two groups’ supportive arguments, i.e. how they argue for or against the non-amortisation or amortisation approach, are studied. Again, as hypothesised, the results show that the two groups use the same type of ‘sophisticated’ framework based arguments instead of economic consequences arguments. Taken together the examination of the comment letters thus indicates that both preparers and non-preparers point at conceptual strengths and weaknesses, instead of pointing at the real cause of the lobbying activities, i.e. perceived economic consequences, when they try to affect the final outcome of the standard. These findings confirm earlier research which has suggested that self-interested lobbyists use accounting theories and concepts as useful justifications.

Professions are characterised by the services they provide and in accounting this includes standard setting. The accounting profession became increasingly involved in the regulation of external financial reporting during the twentieth century by setting standards of accounting practice for its members and entity stakeholders. This narrative analysis of the history of accounting standards in New Zealand focuses on why the accounting profession in New Zealand, as elsewhere in the English-speaking world, assumed the responsibility to draft accounting standards. It argues that accountants did so to maintain their professional status. The New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants was instrumental in creating accounting standards in New Zealand. Cautious to begin with, the Institute soon became a progressive and innovative standard setter, not only developing a conceptual framework for New Zealand standards but also making the standards sector neutral. The Institute retained control of the drafting of accounting standards even when, as happened in the latter decades of the twentieth century, the New Zealand Government became more involved in the standard setting process. Recent changes in the standard setting process, however, such as the development and use of international accounting standards and the creation of statutory bodies to draft and authorise standards raise questions about the accounting profession’s continuing use of standard setting as a mechanism for maintaining professional reputation.

The purpose of this study is to examine the accounting standard-setting process in relation to emissions rights and related liabilities in the Korean context in order to provide a better understanding of accounting issues under an emissions trading scheme (ETS). Using an interpretive inductive approach, this study comprises semi-structured, face-to-face interviews and analysis of relevant documents. Interviews were carried out with a wide range of key players, including accounting standard setters (Korean Accounting Standards Board, International Accounting Standards Board, and Autorité des Normes Comptables), accounting experts, industry and government. This study identifies how problematic accounting issues on emissions rights and related liabilities have been addressed by accounting standard setters. The key accounting issues under ETS are linked mainly with free allowances. It is found that accounting standard setters attempt to establish the most appropriate accounting standard under the given circumstances reflecting a variety of considerations, and that the most common elements affecting the development of accounting standards for ETS are the legal and economic context, the existing accounting framework, and preceding models and practices. Nevertheless, these factors affect the development of accounting standards for ETS in different ways. Accordingly, the primary accounting issues on which each standard setter concentrates vary depending on different circumstances and considerations. This study investigates the accounting standard-setting process for emissions rights by Korean accounting standard setters, from the agenda-setting stage to the final publication of the standard. The findings reinforce the importance of political factors in the standard-setting process, including stakeholders’ participation in the process, prominent stakeholders, and the motivation, methods and timing of lobbying activities. In particular, the findings have important implications for the effectiveness of lobbying. Overall, the findings confirm that accounting standards are likely to be the political outcome of interactions between the accounting standard setter and stakeholders. The findings highlight desirable factors for accounting models of emissions rights. Desirability or appropriateness of standard is judged by the extent to which stakeholders in institutional environments consider the promulgation to be legitimate or authoritative. Therefore, accounting standard setters must make greater efforts to encourage stakeholders to participate in the standard-setting process in order to ensure institutional legitimacy. The originality of this study lies in its empirical research on accounting issues for ETS from a practical point of view. In particular, in its timely and detailed investigation of Korean accounting standard setters, this study provides a broader understanding of the accounting standard-setting process in the Korean context. The study also advances legitimacy theory by offering a framework particularly applicable to accounting standard setting process, which also incorporates stakeholder theory research. The study finds support from the framework and further contributes to the related literature by reviewing legitimacy conflicts. From an accounting policy point of view, the findings have implications for both national and international standard setters and provide guidance on how to achieve high-quality accounting standards with a high degree of compliance.

Cette recherche tente d’évaluer le pouvoir de la profession comptable dans le cadre de la normalisation internationale après la réforme des institutions en 2001. La normalisation comptable internationale, processus technique et politique, se prête à une étude à travers les relations de pouvoir. Une grille d’analyse théorique est construite sur la base du cadre du pouvoir de Lukes (1974, 2005). Elle est ensuite appliquée à l’étude du pouvoir de la profession comptable sur le normalisateur international, en privilégiant la première dimension de ce cadre, l’étude des conflits observables, et la troisième dimension, l’étude des conflits latents. La première dimension est opérationnalisée à travers l’étude du développement d’un projet particulier, la norme IFRS 3 « Regroupements d’entreprises ». Les résultats montrent que l’IASB n’a pas changé sa position sur les questions clés du projet malgré l’opposition des membres de la profession comptable. La troisième dimension est opérationnalisée par l’étude de la composition des principales instances du normalisateur international. L’étude des dispositions des statuts et l’analyse du profil effectif des normalisateurs permettent de mettre en évidence une présence renforcée des membres des grands cabinets d’audit. Les résultats de ces deux études sont enfin comparés, discutés et rapprochés / The aim of this research is to assess the power of the accounting profession on the international standard setting institutions after their reform in 2001. International accounting standard setting, technical and political process, can be studied through power relations. A theoretical framework is built on the basis of the theory of power of Lukes (1974, 2005). It is then applied to the study of the power of the accounting profession on the international standard-setter, focusing on the first dimension of the framework, the study of observable conflicts, and the third dimension, the study of latent conflicts. The application of the first dimension goes through the case-study of the development of IFRS 3 "Business Combinations". The results show that the IASB has not changed its position on the key issues of the project despite opposition from members of the accounting profession. The application of the third dimension goes through the study of the composition of the main bodies of the international standard-setter. The study of IFRS Foundation’s constitution and the analysis of the profile of the standard setters can highlight an increased presence of members of the large audit firms. The results of these two studies are finally compared, discussed and reconciled

Accounting regulation, like any other institution, must be legitimate in order to be complied with. A key component for the legitimacy achievement is a legitimate regulation process. Consequently, the legitimacy of the accounting regulation process has real economic consequences for society as a whole. By building on a framework of prerequisites for a legitimate standard-setting process, the study develops a theoretical model for the analysis of an accounting regulation process’ legitimacy. The empirical setting of the study is distinct from the empirical setting of the literature included in the literature review, as it captures the regulation process of the new municipal accounting act in Sweden. By analyzing all the official documents corresponding to the regulation process of the new municipal accounting act, the study analyses the legitimacy achievement of the accounting regulation process. The results of the study showcase a heavily politically influenced regulation process, where there were deficiencies with the legitimacy achievement. Based on the results of the study, avenues for further research are suggested.

While each phase of the test development process is crucial to the validity of the examination, one phase tends to stand out among the others: the standard setting process. The standard setting process is a time-consuming and expensive endeavor. While it has received the most attention in the literature among any of the technical issues related to criterion-referenced measurement, little research attention has been given to generalizing the resulting performance standards. This procedure has the potential to improve the standard setting process by limiting the number of items rated and the number of individual rater decisions. The ability to generalize performance standards has profound implications both from a psychometric as well as a practicality standpoint. This study was conducted to evaluate the extent to which minimal competency estimates derived from a subset of multiple choice items using the Angoff standard setting method would generalize to the larger item set. Individual item-level estimates of minimal competency were simulated from existing and simulated item difficulty distributions. The study was designed to examine the characteristics of item sets and the standard setting process that could impact the ability to generalize a single performance standard. The characteristics and the relationship between the two item sets included three factors: (a) the item difficulty distributions, (b) the location of the 'true' performance standard, (c) the number of items randomly drawn in the sample. The characteristics of the standard setting process included four factors: (d) number of raters, (e) percentage of unreliable raters, (f) magnitude of 'unreliability' in unreliable raters, and (g) the directional influence of group dynamics and discussion. The aggregated simulation results were evaluated in terms of the location (bias) and the variability (mean absolute deviation, root mean square error) in the estimates. The simulation results suggest that the model of using partial item sets may have some merit as the resulting performance standard estimates may 'adequately' generalize to those set with larger item sets. The simulation results also suggest that elements such as the distribution of item difficulty parameters and the potential for directional group influence may also impact the ability to generalize performance standards and should be carefully considered.

<p>Goodwill har under en längre tid varit ett av redovisningens stora problemområden. Debatten om redovisning av detta komplexa begrepp har pågått länge. Frågan om tidsperioden för avskrivningar eller om koncernmässig goodwill överhuvudtaget skall skrivas av har varit en av de mest omstridda redovisningsfrågorna.</p><p>International Accounting Standards Board är ett oberoende organ vars åtaganden är att fastställa standarder inom redovisning och finansiell rapportering. IFRS är det regelverk som ges ut av IASB. Utvecklandet av IFRS sker genom en internationell process där</p><p>alla intressenter (nationella normgivare, utgivare och användare av finansiella rapporter, revisorer mm) som berörs är beviljade att delge sin uppfattning. IASB publicerade under 2004 en ny standard rörande företagsförvärv. IFRS 3 Business Combinations, innehåller stora förändringar som bland annat innebär att Goodwill inte längre skall skrivas av utan vid behov skrivas ned. Under december 2002 utgav IASB ”Exposure Draft 3, Business Combinations” där nämnden bjöd in aktörer till att svara på och kommentera de olika frågorna som ingick i utkastet till IFRS 3.</p><p>Syftet med denna uppsats är att försöka öka förståelsen av hur lobbying av denna typ fungerar genom att studera svarsbreven IASB erhållit ifrån de olika aktörerna till fråga 8 i utkastet.</p><p>Studien har utgått ifrån ett hermeneutiskt förhållningssätt med en abduktiv ansats. Det empiriska materialet är uppdelat efter hur aktörerna ställt sig till frågan och därefter klassificerat efter vilken grupp intressenterna tillhör. Analysen har genomförts för varje aktörsgrupp separat. Syftet med detta är att försöka urskilja hur varje grupp argumenterat för sin sak för att sedan se om vi kan hitta någonting gemensamt i själva resonemangen som knyter gruppen till en viss ställning. Även argumenten i sig är klassificerade efter syntaktiska, pragmatiska och semantiska resonemang.</p><p>Störst i antalet insända svar var producenter av finansiell information. Då nya regler får en direkt påverkan på producenter av finansiell information kan det relativa intresset från denna grupp förklaras med att aktörer söker påverka mot en position som gynnar</p><p>den egna verksamheten. Den minsta gruppen utgjordes av statliga institutioner, detta kan förklaras med att utkastet inte medförde eventuella skatteeffekter, då standarden behandlar koncernredovisning.</p><p>Innhållet i argumenten var den samma för de flesta aktörer. Samtliga intressenter hade på liknande sätt utgått ifrån IASBs ställningstagande när dessa argumenterade mot utkastet. Aktörerna som var för hade inte sökt stärka sin position i vidare mening. Pragmatiska och semantiska argument var de som förekom mest, syntaktiska argument användes i betydligt lägre utsträckning.</p> / <p>Goodwill has under a significant time been a major dilemma in accounting. The controversy regarding how to recognize this complex concept has been going on for a long period of time. The issue concerning amortisation over the useful life or amortisation of goodwill in general is one of the most disputed accounting subjects.</p><p>International Accounting Standards Board is a self governing organizational body whose assignment is to promulgate accounting and financial standards. IFRS is a set of accounting standards that are issued by IASB. The development of IFRS occurs through a process where all interested parties(standard-setter, auditors, publisher and</p><p>users of financial reports) whose affected are advised to inform their opinion. In 2004 IASB published a new standard concerning business combinations. IFRS 3 contained amendments proposing that goodwill should not be amortised systematically over its useful life and that goodwill instead should be impaired on indication. During</p><p>December 2002 IASB published ”Exposure Draft 3, Business Combinations” where they invited participants to respond and comment on the subject that was included in the exposure draft.</p><p>The purpose of this paper to gain understanding and perception of how lobbying of this nature functions by studying and analyzing the comment letters that IASB received on question 8 in the exposure draft.</p><p>In This paper we assume a hermeneutic abductiv approach. The empirical data is divided after how the interested has positioned themselves in the question and accordingly to suited groups. The analysis has been executed for every interest group separately. The purpose in doing this is to try to identify how the each group has argued for his matter and afterwards seek to find something general in the groups reasoning for it’s position. The arguments that each respondent group applies are also assorted in three classifications, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic.</p><p>Considerable amount of the comment letters were in the group, producers of financial information. When new standards have a direct effect on producers of financial reports, we observed that the interest from this group can be explained by stating that they seek to influence against a position that benefits their financial activities. The minor group constituted of governmental institutions, this can be clarified by noticing that the</p><p>exposure draft did not result in any potential tax effects, since the standard only concerned business combinations.</p><p>The content of the arguments was similar for the majority of the interested parties. They had all in an equivalent way assumed from the same standing point as IASB, when arguing against the exposure draft. The interest that was for the proposal did not attempt to strengthen their position in an extended meaning. The arguments that aroused mostly were pragmatic and semantic, syntactic arguments were applied in a lower extent.</p>

Goodwill har under en längre tid varit ett av redovisningens stora problemområden. Debatten om redovisning av detta komplexa begrepp har pågått länge. Frågan om tidsperioden för avskrivningar eller om koncernmässig goodwill överhuvudtaget skall skrivas av har varit en av de mest omstridda redovisningsfrågorna. International Accounting Standards Board är ett oberoende organ vars åtaganden är att fastställa standarder inom redovisning och finansiell rapportering. IFRS är det regelverk som ges ut av IASB. Utvecklandet av IFRS sker genom en internationell process där alla intressenter (nationella normgivare, utgivare och användare av finansiella rapporter, revisorer mm) som berörs är beviljade att delge sin uppfattning. IASB publicerade under 2004 en ny standard rörande företagsförvärv. IFRS 3 Business Combinations, innehåller stora förändringar som bland annat innebär att Goodwill inte längre skall skrivas av utan vid behov skrivas ned. Under december 2002 utgav IASB ”Exposure Draft 3, Business Combinations” där nämnden bjöd in aktörer till att svara på och kommentera de olika frågorna som ingick i utkastet till IFRS 3. Syftet med denna uppsats är att försöka öka förståelsen av hur lobbying av denna typ fungerar genom att studera svarsbreven IASB erhållit ifrån de olika aktörerna till fråga 8 i utkastet. Studien har utgått ifrån ett hermeneutiskt förhållningssätt med en abduktiv ansats. Det empiriska materialet är uppdelat efter hur aktörerna ställt sig till frågan och därefter klassificerat efter vilken grupp intressenterna tillhör. Analysen har genomförts för varje aktörsgrupp separat. Syftet med detta är att försöka urskilja hur varje grupp argumenterat för sin sak för att sedan se om vi kan hitta någonting gemensamt i själva resonemangen som knyter gruppen till en viss ställning. Även argumenten i sig är klassificerade efter syntaktiska, pragmatiska och semantiska resonemang. Störst i antalet insända svar var producenter av finansiell information. Då nya regler får en direkt påverkan på producenter av finansiell information kan det relativa intresset från denna grupp förklaras med att aktörer söker påverka mot en position som gynnar den egna verksamheten. Den minsta gruppen utgjordes av statliga institutioner, detta kan förklaras med att utkastet inte medförde eventuella skatteeffekter, då standarden behandlar koncernredovisning. Innhållet i argumenten var den samma för de flesta aktörer. Samtliga intressenter hade på liknande sätt utgått ifrån IASBs ställningstagande när dessa argumenterade mot utkastet. Aktörerna som var för hade inte sökt stärka sin position i vidare mening. Pragmatiska och semantiska argument var de som förekom mest, syntaktiska argument användes i betydligt lägre utsträckning. / Goodwill has under a significant time been a major dilemma in accounting. The controversy regarding how to recognize this complex concept has been going on for a long period of time. The issue concerning amortisation over the useful life or amortisation of goodwill in general is one of the most disputed accounting subjects. International Accounting Standards Board is a self governing organizational body whose assignment is to promulgate accounting and financial standards. IFRS is a set of accounting standards that are issued by IASB. The development of IFRS occurs through a process where all interested parties(standard-setter, auditors, publisher and users of financial reports) whose affected are advised to inform their opinion. In 2004 IASB published a new standard concerning business combinations. IFRS 3 contained amendments proposing that goodwill should not be amortised systematically over its useful life and that goodwill instead should be impaired on indication. During December 2002 IASB published ”Exposure Draft 3, Business Combinations” where they invited participants to respond and comment on the subject that was included in the exposure draft. The purpose of this paper to gain understanding and perception of how lobbying of this nature functions by studying and analyzing the comment letters that IASB received on question 8 in the exposure draft. In This paper we assume a hermeneutic abductiv approach. The empirical data is divided after how the interested has positioned themselves in the question and accordingly to suited groups. The analysis has been executed for every interest group separately. The purpose in doing this is to try to identify how the each group has argued for his matter and afterwards seek to find something general in the groups reasoning for it’s position. The arguments that each respondent group applies are also assorted in three classifications, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. Considerable amount of the comment letters were in the group, producers of financial information. When new standards have a direct effect on producers of financial reports, we observed that the interest from this group can be explained by stating that they seek to influence against a position that benefits their financial activities. The minor group constituted of governmental institutions, this can be clarified by noticing that the exposure draft did not result in any potential tax effects, since the standard only concerned business combinations. The content of the arguments was similar for the majority of the interested parties. They had all in an equivalent way assumed from the same standing point as IASB, when arguing against the exposure draft. The interest that was for the proposal did not attempt to strengthen their position in an extended meaning. The arguments that aroused mostly were pragmatic and semantic, syntactic arguments were applied in a lower extent.