The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality versus Quantity: The Case of Forward-Looking Disclosure
Abstract
Empirical studies do not make a clear distinction between the quantity and quality of disclosure. As it is generally assumed that the quantity of information has an implication in determining its quality, quantity measures are often used as proxy for disclosure quality. Nonetheless, the measurement of the quality of disclosure is recognized as a relevant question that is still open and the importance of developing measures of disclosure quality is emphasized in literature. This paper disputes the idea that the quantity of disclosure is a sound proxy for the quality of disclosure. The adoption of multidimensional frameworks for the appreciation of disclosure is discussed and an index for quality disclosure is proposed. Moving from the assumption that high-quality information should usefully support external users in the judgment of past and future performance, we hypothesize that high-quality disclosure is positively associated with accuracy and negatively associated with the dispersion of analysts' earnings forecasts. We show analytically that the proposed framework captures dimensions of annual report disclosure that are considered useful by financial analysts in forecasting earnings and that the proposed measure of disclosure quality has a stronger positive statistical association with accuracy and a stronger negative association with the dispersion of financial analysts' earnings forecasts than a simple index of disclosure quantity has.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,312
Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach
Wooldridge, J. M. (1999) · Cited by 14,347
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00018-0 · Cited by 8,097
Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital.
Botosan, C. A. (1997) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/tar-9709240185 · Cited by 3,436
Cross-Sectional Determinants of Analyst Ratings of Corporate Disclosures
Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (1993) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2491273 · Cited by 2,637
Corporate Disclosure Policy and Analyst Behavior.
Lang, M. H., & Lundholm, R. J. (1996) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/tar-9611271989 · Cited by 2,633
Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies
Hackston, D., & Milne, M. J. (1996) · Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513579610109987 · Cited by 2,166
Have Financial Statements Lost Their Relevance?
Francis, J., & Schipper, K. (1999) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2491412 · Cited by 1,916
The Boundaries of Financial Reporting and How to Extend Them
Lev, B., & Zarowin, P. (1999) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2491413 · Cited by 1,882
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 1994, Improving Business Reporting. A Customer Focus.
- ASB (Accounting Standard Board), 2005, Reporting Standards No. 1: Operating and Financial Review.
- Baginski S. P., 1993, The Accounting Review, 68, 913
- Beattie V. A., 2001, The Analysis of Narratives in Annual Reports: A Multidimesional Framework.
- Beattie V. A., 2002, Narrative Reporting by Listed UK Companies: A Comparative Within-Sector Topic Analysis.
- Beaver W. H., 1979, The Accounting Review, 54, 38
- Botosan C. A., 1997, The Accounting Review, 72, 323
- Chow C. W., 1987, The Accounting Review, 62, 533
- CICA (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants), 2001, Management's Discussion and Analysis; Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure.
- Eccles R. G., 2001, The Value Reporting Revolution: Moving beyond the Earnings Game.
- FASB (Financial Accounting Standard Board), 1980, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information
- FASB (Financial Accounting Standard Board), 2001, Improving Business Reporting: Insights into Enhancing Voluntary Disclosures.
- Hausman J. A., 1978, Econometrica, 45, 319
- IASB (International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation), 1989, The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements.
- ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales), 2000, No Surprises: The Case for Better Risk Reporting.
- Kajüter P., 2003, Risk Reporting in Germany: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study.
- Lang M. H., 1996, The Accounting Review, 71, 467
- LSE (London Stock Exchange), The Combined Code
- Robb S. W. G., 2001, Journal of International Accounting, 10, 71
- Shihvi S. S., 1971, The Accounting Review, 39, 129
- Wallman S. M. H., 1995, Accounting Horizons, 9, 81
- Wallman S. M. H., 1996, Accounting Horizons, 10, 138
Cited by
Mion, G., & Loza Adaui, C. R. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11174612 · Cited by 180
CSR disclosure quantity to CSR disclosure quality – in pursuit of a disclosure quality index
Hameed, F., Wilmshurst, T., & Horner, C. (2024) · Pacific Accounting Review · doi:10.1108/par-11-2023-0161 · Cited by 6
A Review of Corporate Reporting Transparency Quality: Current Status and Future Directions
Hewage, Y. M., Cooray, A., & Ahmed, R. (2026) · Australian Accounting Review · doi:10.1111/auar.70019 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Beretta, S., & Bozzolan, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 333-376
- ISSN
- 0148-558X
- 2160-4061
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 40
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.