Structural Equation Modelling in accounting research: A review of prior studies and further research opportunities

• Authors: Kozarkiewicz Alina

Title variants

PL

Modelowanie równań strukturalnych w badaniach z zakresu rachunkowości: przegląd dotychczasowych prac i możliwości dalszych badań

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to present and discuss the application of Structur-al Equation Modelling (SEM) in accounting research. Following an overview of the termi-nology, statistical concepts, and software used in SEM, the results of a systematic review of the accounting literature are presented, with a focus on the benefits and challenges identi-fied in prior studies. Methodology/approach: This paper is based on a traditional literature review, which helps to demonstrate SEM as a research technique. It is also based on a systematic litera-ture review, which is used to present previous applications of SEM in accounting studies. Findings: SEM offers the possibility to model statistically complex theoretical issues using specialised software. It is a flexible and universal approach used by quantitative account-ing scholars to test and develop theories. SEM research is heterogeneous and encompasses different research strategies, theories tested, branches of accounting, data collection meth-ods, and types of statistical analyses. Research limitations/implications: The main limitation of this study is that the com-plexity of SEM statistical analyses cannot be discussed in detail within the scope of this paper. Originality/value: SEM is gaining popularity among accounting scholars; however, it is not widely used by Polish researchers. Therefore, this paper is a kind of invitation to quan-titative scholars to examine SEM and its potential. It is also a contribution to the current discussions on the automation of research processes.

PL

Cel: Głównym celem artykułu jest przedstawienie i przedyskutowanie zastosowania mode-lowania równań strukturalnych (Structural Equation Modelling − SEM) w badaniach z ra-chunkowości. Omówiono syntetycznie terminologię, koncepcje statystyczne i oprogramo-wanie wspomagające SEM, przedstawiono wyniki systematycznego przeglądu literatury z rachunkowości, koncentrując uwagę na korzyściach i wyzwaniach zidentyfikowanych we wcześniejszych badaniach. Metodyka/podejście badawcze: Praca jest oparta na przeglądzie literatury. Tradycyjny przegląd literatury pozwolił zademonstrować SEM jako technikę badawczą, systematyczny przegląd literatury służył do przedstawienia wcześniejszych zastosowań SEM w badaniach z rachunkowości. Wyniki: SEM daje możliwość modelowania statystycznie złożonych problemów teoretycz-nych przy wsparciu specjalistycznego oprogramowania. Jest to elastyczne i uniwersalne podejście stosowane przez badaczy ilościowych z zakresu rachunkowości do testowania i rozwijania teorii. Heterogeniczność badań SEM dotyczy strategii badawczych, testowa-nych teorii, obszarów rachunkowości, metod zbierania danych, czy rodzajów analiz staty-stycznych. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: Główne ograniczenie tej pracy związane jest ze złożonością analiz statystycznych SEM, które trudno zaprezentować w jednym artykule. Oryginalność/wartość: SEM zyskuje popularność wśród badaczy z rachunkowości, jed-nak nie jest szeroko stosowany przez polskich badaczy. Artykuł jest swego rodzaju zapro-szeniem dla badaczy ilościowych do zwrócenia uwagi na SEM i jego potencjał. Stanowi także przyczynek do toczących się dyskusji na temat automatyzacji procesów badawczych.

Keywords

EN

accounting research; quantitative methods; structural equation modelling; systematic literature review; automation of research processes

PL

badania rachunkowości; badania ilościowe; modelowanie równań strukturalnych; systematyczny przegląd literatury; automatyzacja procesów badawczych

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce (SKwP), Zarząd Główny, Rada Naukowa
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2023
• Issue: 47(4)
• Pages: 135-153

Contributors

author

Kozarkiewicz Alina

• AGH Uniwersity of Krakow, Faculty of Management, Department of Social Capital and Organizations Management

References

• Abdel-Maksoud A., Jabbour M., Abdel-Kader M. (2021), Stakeholder pressure, eco-control systems, and firms’ performance: Empirical evidence from UK manufacturers, “Accounting Forum”, 45 (1), pp. 30−57, DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2020.1827697.
• Al-Okaily M., Alkhwaldi A.F., Abdulmuhsin A.A., Alqudah H., Al-Okaily A. (2023), Cloud-based accounting information systems usage and its impact on Jordanian SMEs’ per-formance: the post-COVID-19 perspective, “Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting”, 21 (1), pp. 126−155, DOI: 10.1108/JFRA-12-2021-0476.
• Akter S., Fosso Wamba S., Dewan S. (2017), Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex model-ling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality, “Production Planning & Control”, 28 (11–12), pp. 1011–1021.
• Amabile T.M. (2020), Creativity, artificial intelligence, and a world of surprises, “Academy of Management Discoveries”, 6 (3), pp. 351−354.
• Bagozzi R.P., Yi Y. (2012), Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equa-tion models, “Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science”, 40, pp. 8−34.
• Bastini K., Getzin F., Lachmann M. (2022, The effects of strategic choices and sustainability control systems in the emergence of organizational capabilities for sustainability, “Ac-counting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 35 (4), pp. 1121−1153, DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2020-4515.
• Buaprommee N., Polyorat K. (2016), Intention to purchase traceable meat: The impacts of perceived information asymmetry, informativeness, usefulness, and norm, “Asian Jour-nal of Business and Accounting”, 9 (1), pp. 141−168.
• Cadez S., Guilding C. (2008), An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting, “Accounting, Organizations and Society”, 33 (7–8), pp. 836−863, DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.01.003.
• Carnegie G., Parker L., Tsahuridu E. (2021), It’s 2020: what is accounting today? “Australian Accounting Review”, 31 (1), pp. 65−73.
• Chong V.K., Johnson D.M. (2007), Testing a model of the antecedents and consequences of budgetary participation on job performance, “Accounting and Business Research”, 37 (1), pp. 3−19, DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2007.9730055.
• Civelek M.E. (2018), Essentials of structural equation modelling, Zea E-Books, Lincoln, NB.
• Coltman T., Devinney T.M., Midgley D.F., Venaik S. (2008), Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement, “Journal of Business Research”, 61 (12), pp. 1250−1262.
• Dash G., Paul J. (2021), CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting, “Technological Forecasting and Social Change”, 173, 121092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092.
• Deb B.C., Rahman M.M., Rahman M.S. (2022), The impact of environmental management accounting on environmental and financial performance: empirical evidence from Bang-ladesh, “Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change”, 19 (3), pp. 420−446, DOI: 10.1108/JAOC-11-2021-0157.
• Dhaifallah B., Md-Auzair S., Maelah R., Ismail M.D. (2020), The effect of product complexity and communication quality on IOCM and OBA in buyer–supplier relationships, “Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change”, 16 (1), pp. 1−29, DOI: 10.1108/JAOC-04-2017-0035.
• Ferri L., Spanò R., Ginesti G., Theodosopoulos G. (2021), Ascertaining auditors’ intentions to use blockchain technology: Evidence from the Big 4 accountancy firms in Italy, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 29 (5), pp. 1063−1087, DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-03-2020-0829.
• Ghasemi R., Habibi H.R., Ghasemlo M., Karami M. (2019), The effectiveness of management accounting systems: evidence from financial organizations in Iran, “Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies”, 9 (2), pp. 182−207, DOI: 10.1108/JAEE-02-2017-0013.
• Groen B.A. (2018), A survey study into participation in goal setting, fairness, and goal commitment: Effects of including multiple types of fairness, “Journal of Management Accounting Research”, 30 (2), pp. 207−240, DOI: 10.2308/jmar-52072.
• Hair J.F., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. (2013), Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance, “Long Range Planning”, 46 (1–2), pp. 1−12.
• Hair Jr J.F., Matthews L.M., Matthews R.L., Sarstedt M. (2017), PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use, “International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis”, 1(2), pp. 107−123.
• Ittner C.D., Larcker, D.F. (1997), Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organiza-tional performance, “Accounting, Organizations and Society”, 22 (3–4), s. 293−314.
• Jesson J.K., Metheson L., Lace F. (2011), Doing your literature review − traditional and systematic techniques, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Jodie B.U., Ullman B. (2006), Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and mov-ing forward, “Journal of Personality Assessment”, 87 (1), pp. 35−50.
• Johansson T., Siverbo S., Camén C. (2016), Managing cooperation, coordination, and legit-imacy: Control of contracted public services, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 29 (6), pp. 1012−1037, DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-08-2014-1805.
• Johnson C.D., Bauer B.C., Niederman F. (2021), The automation of management and busi-ness science, “Academy of Management Perspectives”, 35 (2), pp. 292−309.
• Kaplan D. (2008), Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions, Sage Publi-cations, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• King R.D., Rowland, J., Oliver S.G., Young M., Aubrey W., Byrne E., Liakata M., Markham M., Pir P., Soldatova L.N., 2009, The automation of science, “Science”, 324 (5923), pp. 85−89.
• Kline R. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, The Guilford Press.
• Lee L., Petter S., Fayard D., Robinson S. (2011), On the use of partial least squares path modeling in accounting research, “International Journal of Accounting Information Systems”, 12 (4), pp. 305−328.
• Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman A. E., Liao T. F. (2004), The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Maryam S., Sule, E.T., Ariawaty R.N. (2021), Effects of Safety Climate and Employee Engage-ment towards Organisational Citizenship Behaviour of Sewage Workers, “Asian Journal of Business and Accounting”, 14 (1), pp. 253−275, DOI: 10.22452/ajba.vol14no1.10.
• Meier J.H., Esmatyar W. (2016), Managerial Optimism and the Cost of Capital. The SEM-Approach with a Focus on the German Capital Market, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 86 (142), pp. 119−134.
• Mir F.A., Rezania D. (2022), From interactive control to IT project performance: examining the mediating role of stakeholder analysis effectiveness, “Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change”, 18 (5), pp. 727−751, DOI: 10.1108/JAOC-04-2021-0048.
• Mueller R. (1997), Structural equation modelling. Back to basics, “Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal”, 4 (4), pp. 353–369.
• Namazi M., Rezaei G. (2023), Modelling the role of strategic planning, strategic manage-ment accounting information system, and psychological factors on the budgetary slack, “Accounting Forum”, pp. 1−28, DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2022.2163040.
• Narayanan A. (2012), A review of eight software packages for structural equation modelling, “The American Statistician”, 66 (2), pp. 129−138.
• Nitzl C. (2016), The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development, “Journal of Accounting Literature”, 37 (1), pp. 19−35.
• Rahi S., Abd. Ghani M. (2019), Integration of DeLone and McLean and self-determination theo-ry in internet banking continuance intention context, “International Journal of Accounting & Information Management”, 27 (3), pp. 512−528, DOI: 10.1108/IJAIM-07-2018-0077.
• Sarikhani M., Ebrahimi F. (2022), Whistleblowing by accountants: an integration of the fraud pentagon and the extended theory of planned behaviour, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 30 (6), pp. 1740−1763, DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-10-2020-1047.
• Shafer W.E., Park L.J., Liao W.M. (2002), Professionalism, organizational‐professional conflict and work outcomes: a study of certified management accountants, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 15(1), pp. 46−68, DOI: 10.1108/09513570210418888.
• Shafer W.E., Simmons R.S., Yip R.W. (2016), Social responsibility, professional commitment and tax fraud, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 29 (1), pp. 111−134, DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-03-2014-1620.
• Shook C.L., Ketchen Jr D.J., Hult G.T.M., Kacmar K. M. (2004), An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research, “Strategic Management Journal”, 25 (4), pp. 397−404.
• Sihombing R.P., Agustia D., Soewarno N. (2023), The mediating effect of data analytics on the relationship between organizational psychological safety and advisory services, “Managerial Auditing Journal”, 38 (4), pp. 337−353, DOI: 10.1108/MAJ-04-2022-3521.
• Sparkes A., Aubrey W., Byrne E., Clare A., Khan M.N., Liakata M., Markham M., Rowland J., Soldatova L.N., Whelan K.E., (2010), Towards robot scientists for autonomous scien-tific discovery, “Automated Experimentation”, 2 (1), pp. 1−11.
• Staniec I. (2018), Modelowanie równań strukturalnych w naukach o zarządzaniu, „Organizacja i Kierowanie”, 2 (181), pp. 65–77.
• Taha A.A. (2023), Internal auditors’ independence under workplace bullying stress: an in-vestigative study, “Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research”, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, DOI: 10.1108/JIABR-09-2022-0239.
• Tan K.L., Liu Y., Ye Q. (2023), A gendered discourse on truthful disclosure of financial fraud practices among accountants in China: implications to corporate governance, “Accounting Research Journal”, 36 (2/3), pp. 230−250, DOI: 10.1108/ARJ-07-2022-0160.
• Tarka P. (2018), An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences, “Quality & Quantity”, 52, pp. 313−354.
• Thoradeniya P., Lee J., Tan R., Ferreira A. (2015), Sustainability reporting and the theory of planned behaviour, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 28 (7), pp. 1099−1137, DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-08-2013-1449.
• Uyar A., Kuzey C. (2016), Contingent factors, extent of budget use and performance: A structural equation approach, “Australian Accounting Review”, 26v(1), pp. 91−106, DOI: 10.1111/auar.12090.
• Van der Kolk B., van Veen-Dirks P.M., ter Bogt H.J. (2019), The impact of management control on employee motivation and performance in the public sector, “European Accounting Review”, 28 (5), pp. 901−928, DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2018.1553728.
• Westland J.C. (2015), Structural equation models, “Studies in Systems Decision and Con-trol”, 22 (5), p. 152.
• Williams L.J., Vandenberg R.J., Edwards J.R. (2009), 12 structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis, “Academy of Management Annals”, 3 (1), pp. 543−604.
• Yulianti Y., Zarkasyi M.W., Suharman H., Soemantri R. (2023), Effects of professional commitment, commitment to ethics, internal locus of control and emotional intelligence on the ability to detect fraud through reduced audit quality behaviors, “Journal of Islam-ic Accounting and Business Research”, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print, DOI: 10.1108/JIABR-02-2021-0076.