Holley, Charles L.

Olds, Philip R.

English

eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)

Woman C.P.A. Volume 51 Issue 3 Article 2 7-1989 Specialties — And More Specialties: Attitudes Toward Accreditation Charles L. Holley Philip R. Olds Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/wcpa  Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons Recommended Citation Holley, Charles L. and Olds, Philip R. (1989) "Specialties — And More Specialties: Attitudes Toward Accreditation," Woman C.P.A.: Vol. 51 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/wcpa/vol51/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Archival Digital Accounting Collection at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Woman C.P.A. by an authorized editor of eGrove. For more information, please contact egrove@olemiss.edu. Accredited Computer Auditing SpecialistAccredited Personal Financial SpecialistAccredited Corporate Taxation SpecialistAccredited Individual Taxation SpecialistAccredited Statistical Sampling SpecialistLillian C. Cundiff Certified Public AccountantAccredited Governmental Accounting SpecialistSpecialties — And More SpecialtiesAttitudes Toward AccreditationBy Charles L. Holley and Philip R. OldsIntroductionIn its 1985-86 Annual Report, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) stated “recognizing the existence of de facto specialization among members and the desire of some to have a particular expertise recognized, Council authorized a program to accredit specialties. The Special Committee on Specialization . . . will study areas of practice in which members, by meeting experience, examination, and educational requirements, can seek accreditation” [AICPA, 1986, p. 213].The creation of a special AICPA committee to pursue the accreditation of specialties recognizes the reality that specialization is very prevalent in the accounting profession. But the action of formally recognizing areas of expertise with official certification of specialists has manyThe Woman CPA, July 1989/5implications. The complexity of clients’ needs has resulted in practitioner specialization even though there has not been a formal accreditation process. Competence in a specific area is presently attained through various combinations of professional programs, self-study, and work experience. Larger public accounting firms obtain specialized staff by offering comprehensive educational programs. The continuing education programs of these firms and the extensive array of specialized educational offerings of state CPA societies and the AICPA represent an acknowledgment that specialized knowledge is desired and needed.As evidence of the increasing recognition of specific practice areas, the AICPA has recently granted the specialty designation of “Accredited Personal Financial Specialist” (APFS) to 94 CPAs. This program was authorized July 1987. To qualify for the APFS designation, a CPA must meet six requirements, which include passing a one-day examination, having a minimum of 250 hours of experience in personal financial planning in each of the three years immediately preceding initial application and providing six references from other professionals and clients. Once a year, CPAs who have earned the APFS designation must meet reaccreditation requirements. They include continuing professional education and completion of a practice questionnaire. Valid state CPA certificates and membership in the AICPA also must be maintained. Recipients of the APFS designation include 25 who passed the examination in October 1987, and 69 who were granted the designation after earning a similar one from the Colorado Society of CPA’s National AccreditationBoard. The Colorado program has been integrated into the AICPA program to create a national standard [AICPA, 1988, p. 2].Some of the principal questions related to the specialization issue are the following:• Is there a desire or need within the accounting profession for formal designation of specialists?• Should a certification structure be established within the existing framework of the AICPA?The action of formally recognizing areas of expertise with official certification of specialists has many implications.• What are appropriate methods or processes for granting specialist designations?• Should post-certification skills of specialists be monitored in order to validate the certification?• Would a formal specialization program result in a higher quality of services for clients?This article summarizes certain specialization issues and presents the results of a survey on specialization based on a sampling of the membership of the AICPA.MethodologyThe method used to collect data for this study was a survey consisting of questionnaries mailed to a representative sample of 300 members of the AICPA. The response rate to the questionnaire was 60% after the second mailing. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement on the questionnaire. The scale ranged from “strongly agree” (value = 5) to “strongly disagree” (value = 1). In the open-end portion of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to (1) identify “other specialties” that they would recommend for a certification program, (2) indicate areas where they consider themselves specialists and (3) identify areas where they would seek specialization certifications if such designations were created.ResultsFor each statement on the questionnaire, the mean and the confidence level related to t tests with hypothesized mean responses equal to 3.00 were determined. Overall, the respondents supported the approach of a voluntary certification program including formal examinations and experience requirements, and the concensus was that the certification program should be jointly administered by the AICPA and State Boards of Accountancy. Moreover, opinions were that a new certification program for specialties should not affect the structure of the current certified public accountant examination. The last statement included on the questionnaire was that the Council of the AICPA should approve a formal plan for certification of specialties. The mean rating for this overall statement was 3.65 indicating a relatively high degree6/The Woman CPA, July 1989of agreement in favor of a certification program. The three statements soliciting the highest mean ratings were as follow:Mean4.53 2. A certification plan for specialties should not affect current requirements for the CPA certificate.4.20 5. An experience requirement should be required as part of a certification program for specialists.3.91 4. A formal examinationshould be required as part of a certification program for specialists.The three statements soliciting the lowest mean ratings were as follow:Mean1.28 3. A certification plan for specialties should replace the current CPA examination process.2.04 16. A formal certification program for specialties should be sponsored only by State Boards of Accountancy.2.62 12. State Boards of Accountancy should make necessary decisions regarding the appropriateness of individual experience for specialization programs.Comments on the open-ended section of the questionnaire were made by 43 percent of the respondents. Some stated that rather than identifying categories as areas of expertise, such as computer auditing, corporate taxation, etc., that specialties should be identified by industriesOverall, the respondents supported the approach of a voluntary certification program including formal examinations and experience requirements...or types of business. Categories included banking, construction, real estate, public utilities, insurance, and health care. Some respondents stated that specialization should be established for every area covered by an AICPA Audit Guide. Additional functional areas recommended for specialization included controllership, management advisory services, computer consulting, and systems design. Conversely, some concern was expressed that specialization would tend to confuse the public.Further insight into members’ preferences was obtained by grouping respondents based on similar demographic characteristics. Different comparisons were made based on six demographic characteristics: the respondent’s employer; position in a public accounting firm (if so employed); number of years certified; type of undergraduate degree; whether or not the respondent considers himself or herself to be a specialist; and the respondent’s gender.Subgroup ComparisonsAnalysis of different subgroups of members of the AICPA disclosed a total of 24 differences of opinions that were statistically significant with a confidence level of at least 95 percent. Two-thirds of these differences occurred when both subgroups agreed with the premise of the question but differed in the magnitude of their agreement. The remaining differences were “strong disagreements”; that is, one subgroup essentially concurred with the statement while the other subgroup disagreed with the statement.Twelve of the 24 differences of opinions resulted from comparing responses of those who indicated they would pursue formal recognition of at least one specialty if certification of specialties were established with responses of those who indicated they would not. Five of the twelve differences for these subgroups represented “strong disagreements” in responses to the following statements:1. Formal certification in specialties should be available as a voluntary program after obtaining the CPA designation.8. Clients would react favorably to their CPAs having specialty designations.18. The quality of accounting services would be enhanced by specialization programs.19. If specialization programs are established, graduate accounting programs should stress specializations.25. A specialty should be formally recognized for cost/managerial accounting.The disagreement over the firstThe Woman CPA, July 1989/1Female accountants were more supportive than were males of having specialties established for individual taxation, governmental accounting and cost­managerial accounting.statement is especially noteworthy because those indicating they would not seek specialty recognition are opposed to even a voluntary program for formal recognition of specialties.Not surprisingly, there were significant differences in the level of support for the desirability of the specialties proposed in the questionnaire. Accountants planning to pursue attainment of a specialty were significantly more supportive of all the specialties proposed except for computer auditing and statistical sampling. Of those who stated that they would try to obtain a specialty designation, the areas they were most interested in pursuing were corporate taxation (first), individual taxation (second), and personal financial planning (third). Fifty-five percent of these respondents indicated they would pursue at least two specialties and eighteen percent indicated at least three.Participants who had been certified for differing numbers of years held opposing views primarily about what organization should be responsible for establishing and administering a specialization program (statements 15 to 17).15. A formal certification program for specialties should be sponsored only by the AICPA.16. A formal certification program for specialties should be sponsored only by State Boards of Accountancy.17. A formal certification program for specialties should be sponsored jointly by the AICPA and State Boards of Accountancy.The younger accountants (6-10 years as CPAs) believe that responsibility should be shared by the AICPA and the State Boards of Accountancy. Accountants with more years of certification (11-20 years) tended to believe that the AICPA should have sole responsibility.CPAs employed by different types of entities (Big-8, non-Big-8, and industry) also disagreed in their views on some of the issues. The most noteworthy of these differences had to do with who should be in control of programs for recognizing specialties. Accountants in industry were less enthusiastic about the AICPA being the sole regulator then were accountants working in non-Big-8 CPA firms.Other significant subgroup differences were found to exist between CPAs of different sexes and those having different types of undergraduate degrees. Female accountants were more supportive than were males of having specialties established for individual taxation, governmental accounting and cost-managerial accounting. Respondents with non­accounting majors in their undergraduate degree programs favored the specialty for computer auditing more than did those having accounting as an undergraduate major.SummaryThis survey of a representative sample of the AICPA provided information on various issues regarding formal certification of accounting specialties. The specialization issue continues to evolve as an important one for the accounting profession. The results of this study indicate overall support for the establishment of a formal certification program to be jointly administered by the AICPA and State Boards of Accountancy. In addition, there exists support for a formal examination process as well as some experience requirements. The greatest number of differences in opinions existed between the sub-group indicating they would pursue a specialist designation and the sub-group indicating they would not. Other important differences were noted between respondents depending upon years of certification, type of employer and gender.ReferencesAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1985-86 Annual Report printed in the Journal of Accountancy (November 1986) p. 213., The CPA Letter (March 15, 1988), p. 2.Philip R. Olds, Ph.D., CPA, is an Associate Professor of Accounting at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received his Ph.D. from Georgia State University and he is a CPA in the state of Virginia.Charles L. Holley, D.B.A., CPA, is a Professor of Accounting at Virginia Commonwealth University. He is a member of the AICPA and Virginia Society of CPAs.8/The Woman CPA, July 1989

Specialties — And More Specialties: Attitudes Toward Accreditation

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3298&context=wcpa

Specialties — And More Specialties: Attitudes Toward Accreditation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)