Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225

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

Beretta, Sergio, Bozzolan, Saverio·2008·Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance
DOI 10.1177/0148558x0802300304
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0148558x0802300304

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 1994, Improving Business Reporting. A Customer Focus.
  2. ASB (Accounting Standard Board), 2005, Reporting Standards No. 1: Operating and Financial Review.
  3. Baginski S. P., 1993, The Accounting Review, 68, 913
  4. Beattie V. A., 2001, The Analysis of Narratives in Annual Reports: A Multidimesional Framework.
  5. Beattie V. A., 2002, Narrative Reporting by Listed UK Companies: A Comparative Within-Sector Topic Analysis.
  6. Beaver W. H., 1979, The Accounting Review, 54, 38
  7. Botosan C. A., 1997, The Accounting Review, 72, 323
  8. Chow C. W., 1987, The Accounting Review, 62, 533
  9. CICA (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants), 2001, Management's Discussion and Analysis; Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure.
  10. Eccles R. G., 2001, The Value Reporting Revolution: Moving beyond the Earnings Game.
  11. FASB (Financial Accounting Standard Board), 1980, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information
  12. FASB (Financial Accounting Standard Board), 2001, Improving Business Reporting: Insights into Enhancing Voluntary Disclosures.
  13. Hausman J. A., 1978, Econometrica, 45, 319
  14. IASB (International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation), 1989, The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements.
  15. ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales), 2000, No Surprises: The Case for Better Risk Reporting.
  16. Kajüter P., 2003, Risk Reporting in Germany: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study.
  17. Lang M. H., 1996, The Accounting Review, 71, 467
  18. LSE (London Stock Exchange), The Combined Code
  19. Robb S. W. G., 2001, Journal of International Accounting, 10, 71
  20. Shihvi S. S., 1971, The Accounting Review, 39, 129
  21. Wallman S. M. H., 1995, Accounting Horizons, 9, 81
  22. Wallman S. M. H., 1996, Accounting Horizons, 10, 138

Cited by

See all 225

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
DOI
10.1177/0148558x0802300304
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.