In July 1999, the AICPA Board endorsed The AICPA Core Competency Framework for Entry into the Accounting Profession (the Framework). The Framework emphasizes skills and competencies universally applicable to a diverse and growing array of accounting career options rather than a more traditional content approach (i.e., topics tested on the CPA exam).

 

The Framework breaks these needed competencies into three broad categories (functional, personal, and broad business perspective). Functional Competencies relate to the technical competencies most closely aligned with the value contributed by accounting professionals. As such the AICPA's Functional Competencies are the goal of the SHSU BBA in Accounting. The AICPA has identified six Functional Competencies.

- Decision Modeling

- Risk Analysis

- Measurement

- Reporting

- Research

- Leverage Technology to Develop and Enhance Functional Competencies.

 

At the undergraduate level, the Department of Accounting has selected five of these six competencies as objectives. The five competencies that will be assessed at the undergraduate level are:

- Decision Modeling

- Risk Analysis

- Measurement

- Reporting

- Leverage Technology to Develop and Enhance Functional Competencies.

Individuals preparing to enter the accounting profession must be able to use strategic and critical approaches to decision-making. They must objectively consider issues, identify alternatives, and choose and implement solution approaches in order to deliver services and provide value.

Elements (Sub-Objectives) include:

- Identifies problems and potential solution approaches

- Uses quantitative techniques to determine relative importance and likelihood of alternative scenarios

- Employs model-building to quantify problems or test solutions

- Evaluates the cost/benefit of alternative solutions

- Organizes and evaluates information, alternatives, cost/benefits, risks and rewards

- Links data, knowledge, and insights together for decision-making purposes

- Objectively identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with a specific scenario, case, or business activity 

 A mix of exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments, in multiple courses spread across the accounting curriculum, will be used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Decision Modeling competency. The mix depends on the course in which the assessment is being made and the instructor’s choice of instrument and selected sub-objectives.  The results from the various classes will be forwarded to the Departmental Assessment Committee.  This committee will compile the results and present the findings to the departmental faculty.  

In each course, the instructor will determine a minimal acceptable score for each indicator used for assessment in that class.  This minimal acceptable score may vary both across classes as well as inside a particular class.  This variability is necessary due to the different type of indicators (exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments) used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Decision Modeling competency.

Once the assessment of Decision Modeling is completed in the appropriate courses, the percentage of successful student attempts (number of students successfully completing the specific outcome predetermined success level divided by the total number of students attempting the specific outcome) will be reported for each class.   The Departmental Assessment Committee will then compile the reports into an aggregated report that will show the success percentage by classification (junior, senior, and graduate).  The Department of Accounting has set different target standards based on classification.  The standards are 60% for junior-level classes, 70% for senior-level classes, and 75% for graduate-level classes. 

                  Junior     Seniors    Combined

Successes       373       96            469
Attempts        630       132          762
Success Ratio  59.2%   72.7%       61.5%

Minimum
Acceptable
Rate               60%      70%

At the junior level, the success ratio falls below the minimum acceptable level of 60% by less than one percentage point. While one sub-objective (link data, knowledge, and insights together for decision-making purposes) was assessed at 68.1%, the assessed levels of two other sub-objectives were not as strong.  The sub-objective related to using quantitative techniques to determine relative importance and likelihood of alternative scenarios was below the minimum acceptable level at 56.3%.  The other sub-objective related to employing model-building to quantify problems or test solutions was below the minimum acceptable level at 53.7%.  The faculty teaching courses at the junior level should consider additional problem and case assignments, as well as increased class discussions where appropriate in the curriculum, that address these two sub-objectives.

At the senior level, the success ratio exceeds the minimum acceptable level of 70% by almost three percentage points.  While one sub-objective (identify problems and potential solution approaches) was assessed at 77.3%, the other sub-objective assessed (link data, knowledge, and insights together for decision-making purposes) was slightly below the minimum acceptable level at 68.2%.  The department should consider additional problem and case assignment, as well as increased class discussions where appropriate in the curriculum, that address this sub-objective.

Risk analysis and control is fundamental to professional service delivery. The identification and management of audit risk (that is, the risk that the auditor will fail to detect a misstatement, caused by inadvertent error or fraud, that is material to financial statements) is the basis for the conduct of a GAAS audit. The understanding of business risk (that is, the risk that an entity - either a client or the prospective accounting professionals employer - will fail to achieve its objectives) affects how business strategy is created and implemented.

Elements (Sub-Objectives) include:

- Identifies risks of negative outcomes (including fraud)

- Evaluates controls that mitigate risk of negative outcomes through prevention or detection and correction

- Assesses and controls unmitigated risks through, for example, designing and applying tests

- Communicates the impact of identified risks and recommends corrective action 

A mix of exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments, in multiple courses spread across the accounting curriculum, will be used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Risk Analysis competency. The mix depends on the course in which the assessment is being made and the instructor’s choice of instrument and selected sub-objectives.  The results from the various classes will be forwarded to the Departmental Assessment Committee.  This committee will compile the results and present the findings to the departmental faculty.  

In each course, the instructor will determine a minimal acceptable score for each indicator used for assessment in that class.  This minimal acceptable score may vary both across classes as well as inside a particular class.  This variability is necessary due to the different type of indicators (exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments) used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Risk Analysis competency.

Once the assessment of Risk Analysis is completed in the appropriate courses, the percentage of successful student attempts (number of students successfully completing the specific outcome predetermined success level divided by the total number of students attempting the specific outcome) will be reported for each class.   The Departmental Assessment Committee will then compile the reports into an aggregated report that will show the success percentage by classification (junior, senior, and graduate).  The Department of Accounting has set different target standards based on classification.  The standards are 60% for junior-level classes, 70% for senior-level classes, and 75% for graduate-level classes. 

                    Junior       Graduate  Combined
Successes       115           157          272
Attempts         153           201          354
Success Ratio  75.2%        78.1%      76.8%

Minimum
Acceptable
Rate               60%           75%

At the junior level, the success ratio exceeds the minimum acceptable level of 60% by over 15 percentage points.  While this is a highly acceptable result, faculty teaching courses at the junior level in which this objective is to be assessed may wish to consider adding, where possible given course content, additional sub-objectives to their assessment strategies that may serve to cross validate this finding.  The graduate success ratio exceeds the minimum acceptable level of 75% by approximately 3 percentage points.  Although two of the sub-objectives in this content area (identify risk of negative outcomes; communicate the impact of identified risks and recommend corrective action) were each assessed at over 90% success ratios, the assessed levels of the two other sub-objectives were not as strong.   The sub-objective related to evaluating controls that mitigate risks of negative outcomes through prevention or detection or correction was only slightly above the minimum acceptable level at 79.3%.  The other sub-objective involving assessing and controlling unmitigated risks through designing and applying tests was significantly below the acceptable level at 58.9%.  The department should consider additional problem and case assignments as well as increased class discussions, where appropriate in the curriculum, that address these two sub-objectives. 

Measures used should be both relevant (that is, bear on the decision to be made) and reliable (consistently measure what they purport to measure). Various measurement and disclosure criteria used by accounting professionals - such as GAAP, OCBOA (Other Comprehensive Basis of Accounting) and tax reporting - have been codified to some degree. Other performance measures (such as Economic Value Added) or stated criteria (for example, investment performance) are used for special purposes. Some measurement criteria (such as effectiveness of internal control) are measured qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.

Elements (Sub-Objectives) include:

- Identifies what needs to be measured

- Determines an appropriate, relevant and reliable measure for the intended use

- Measures items using appropriate methods of measurement

- Presents the measurement results objectively using applicable standards of disclosure or reporting

- Resolves ambiguities when estimates are required 

A mix of exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments, in multiple courses spread across the accounting curriculum, will be used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Measurement competency. The mix depends on the course in which the assessment is being made and the instructor’s choice of instrument and selected sub-objectives.  The results from the various classes will be forwarded to the Departmental Assessment Committee.  This committee will compile the results and present the findings to the departmental faculty.  

In each course, the instructor will determine a minimal acceptable score for each indicator used for assessment in that class.  This minimal acceptable score may vary both across classes as well as inside a particular class.  This variability is necessary due to the different type of indicators (exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments) used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Measurement competency.

Once the assessment of Measurement is completed in the appropriate courses, the percentage of successful student attempts (number of students successfully completing the specific outcome predetermined success level divided by the total number of students attempting the specific outcome) will be reported for each class.   The Departmental Assessment Committee will then compile the reports into an aggregated report that will show the success percentage by classification (junior, senior, and graduate).  The Department of Accounting has set different target standards based on classification.  The standards are 60% for junior-level classes, 70% for senior-level classes, and 75% for graduate-level classes. 

                    Juniors   Seniors    Graduate   Combined

Successes      3207       178         190          3575
Attempts        4882       266        209           5357
Success Ratio  65.7%    66.9%     90.9%       66.7%

Minimum
Acceptable
Rate               60%       70%        75%

For juniors, the success ratio exceeds the minimum acceptable level of 60% by 5.7 percentage points.   While this is a highly acceptable result, faculty teaching courses at the junior level in which this objective is to be assessed may wish to consider adding, where possible given course content, additional sub-objectives to their assessment strategies that may serve to cross validate this finding.  For seniors, the assessment results fall below the minimum acceptable level of 70% by approximately 3%.  However, the success ratio, for seniors is one point higher than for juniors.  Furthermore, this seems to be an odd result given that in the year before and the year after the senior year, the students appear to have achieved the learning objective of measurement.  There were 4882 assessments for the juniors, and only 266 assessments for the seniors.  While there are fewer seniors than juniors, this disparity also reflects the fact that in the senior courses significantly fewer questions were used to assess measurement and only two sub-objectives were addressed.   Additionally, one of the two sub-objectives addressed in this content area (presenting the measurement results objectively using applicable standards of disclosure or reporting) was significantly above the minimum acceptable level of 70%, by 8.8 percentage points.  However, the assessed levels of the other sub-objective, which related to measuring items using appropriate methods of measurement,  was not as strong, and was  below the acceptable level at a 62.8% success ratio.  The department should consider additional problem and case assignments as well as increased class discussions, where appropriate in the curriculum, which addresses this specific sub-objective.  The graduate success ratio exceeds the minimum acceptable level of 75% by approximately 16 percentage points.  Two sub-objectives were assessed in this content area (identifying what needs to be measured and determining an appropriate, relevant and reliable measure for the intended use) and both sub-objectives were each assessed at over 90% success ratios.  While this is a highly acceptable result, faculty teaching courses at the graduate level in which this objective is to be assessed may wish to consider adding, where possible, given course content, additional sub-objectives to their assessment strategies that may serve to cross validate this finding. 

For all levels of classes, special attention should be given to the type and number of assessment indicators used.  It is highly likely that the differences between the juniors, seniors and graduate students are more related to the different number and types of assessments than to differences in achieving the learning objective of measurement.   Overall, the department should continue to emphasize measurement as a learning objective for all three levels of courses, with a goal of increasing the percentage of successful attempts over time.

Communicating the scope of work and findings or recommendations is an integral part of a professional service. An accounting professional in public practice might issue an audit or attestation report, recommendations for improved services, or tax or financial planning advice. An accounting professional in business, industry, or government might analyze operations or provide communications to the board of directors. Communicating clearly and objectively the work done and the resulting findings is critical to the value of the professional service. Some forms of communication are governed by professional standards (such as the form and content of the standard auditor's report or the required communications to audit committees) or law. Others are based on the service applied and the needs of those to whom the accounting professional reports.

Elements (Sub-Objectives) include:

- Prepares reports with objectivity, conciseness and clarity

- Describes work performed and conclusions reached in a manner that enhances the reports' usefulness

- Employs appropriate media in report preparation and presentation 

A mix of exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments, in multiple courses spread across the accounting curriculum, will be used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Reporting competency. The mix depends on the course in which the assessment is being made and the instructor’s choice of instrument and selected sub-objectives.  The results from the various classes will be forwarded to the Departmental Assessment Committee.  This committee will compile the results and present the findings to the departmental faculty.  

In each course, the instructor will determine a minimal acceptable score for each indicator used for assessment in that class.  This minimal acceptable score may vary both across classes as well as inside a particular class.  This variability is necessary due to the different type of indicators (exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments) used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Reporting competency.

Once the assessment of Reporting is completed in the appropriate courses, the percentage of successful student attempts (number of students successfully completing the specific outcome predetermined success level divided by the total number of students attempting the specific outcome) will be reported for each class.   The Departmental Assessment Committee will then compile the reports into an aggregated report that will show the success percentage by classification (junior, senior, and graduate).  The Department of Accounting has set different target standards based on classification.  The standards are 60% for junior-level classes, 70% for senior-level classes, and 75% for graduate-level classes. 

                     Junior     Senior     Graduate     Combined

Successes       381         217        88               686
Attempts        585         334        91               1,010
Success Ratio  65.1%     65.0%    96.7%          67.9%

At the junior level, the success ratio exceeds the minimum acceptable level of 60%. While this is an acceptable result, faculty teaching courses at the junior level in which this objective is to be assessed may wish to consider adding, where appropriate given course content, additional sub-objectives to their assessment strategies that may serve to cross-validate this finding.

The senior level success ratio is five percentage points below the minimum acceptable level of 70%.  This is due to the results of two sub-objectives:

(1) Prepare reports with objectivity, conciseness and clarity.

(2)Describe work performed and conclusions reached in a manner that enhances the reports’ usefulness.

The department should consider additional assignments and increased class discussions, where appropriate in the curriculum, that address the sub-objectives related to preparing reports with objectivity, conciseness and clarity and describing work performed and conclusions reached in a manner that enhances the reports’ usefulness.

The graduate success ratio was well above the minimum acceptable level of 75%. While this is a highly acceptable result, faculty teaching graduate courses in which this objective is to be assessed may wish to consider adding, where appropriate given course content, additional sub-objectives to their assessment strategies that may serve to cross-validate this finding.

Technology is pervasive in the accounting profession. Individuals entering the accounting profession must acquire the necessary skills to use technology tools effectively and efficiently. These technology tools can be used both to develop and apply other functional competencies.

Elements (Sub-Objectives) include:

- Accesses appropriate electronic databases to obtain decision-supporting information

- Assesses the risk of technology and automated business processes

- Uses technology assisted tools to assess and control risk and document work performed

- Builds appropriate models and simulations using electronic spreadsheets and other software 

A mix of exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments, in multiple courses spread across the accounting curriculum, will be used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Leveraging Technology competency. The mix depends on the course in which the assessment is being made and the instructor’s choice of instrument and selected sub-objectives.  The results from the various classes will be forwarded to the Departmental Assessment Committee.  This committee will compile the results and present the findings to the departmental faculty.  

 

In each course, the instructor will determine a minimal acceptable score for each indicator used for assessment in that class.  This minimal acceptable score may vary both across classes as well as inside a particular class.  This variability is necessary due to the different type of indicators (exam questions, projects, cases, and / or problem assignments) used to assess students' achievement on selected sub-objectives of the Leveraging Technology competency.

Once the assessment of Leveraging Technology is completed in the appropriate courses, the percentage of successful student attempts (number of students successfully completing the specific outcome predetermined success level divided by the total number of students attempting the specific outcome) will be reported for each class.   The Departmental Assessment Committee will then compile the reports into an aggregated report that will show the success percentage by classification (junior, senior, and graduate).  The Department of Accounting has set different target standards based on classification.  The standards are 60% for junior-level classes, 70% for senior-level classes, and 75% for graduate-level classes. 

                     Junior      Senior      Graduate      Combined

Successes       355           24             151             530
Attempts         375           41            166             582
Success Ratio  94.7%       58.5%       91.0%         91.1%

Although the success ratio at the junior level exceeds the minimum of 60% by over 24 percentage points, faculty teaching the courses in which this objective was assessed may consider, given the content of the courses involved, adding additional sub-objectives to their assessment strategies to cross validate this finding.  The senior level ratio is over 11 percentage points below the acceptable threshold due to the effect of the one sub-objective assessed:   building appropriate models and simulations using electronic spreadsheets and other software.  Although there was a comparatively small number of measurements for this sub-objective that may have affected this outcome, the department should address the possible need of placing greater emphasis on the use of electronic spreadsheets and other software in model building through additional problem and/or case assignments as well as greater emphasis in class discussions, where appropriate given course content and structure.  The graduate success ratio exceeds the minimum threshold by over 16 percentage points.  While this is a most acceptable result, faculty in the graduate courses where leveraging technology is assessed may consider  adding additional sub-objectives, if possible due to course content, to their assessment criteria in order to cross validate this finding.