This article was downloaded by: [National Cheng Kung University]

On: 15 February 2012, At: 00:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Business

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

An Empirical Investigation of the Relevant Skills of Forensic

Accountants
a
James A. Digabriele
a
Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey

Available online: 07 Aug 2010

To cite this article: James A. Digabriele (2008): An Empirical Investigation of the Relevant Skills of Forensic Accountants, Journal of
Education for Business, 83:6, 331-338

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.6.331-338

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the
use of this material.
 An Empirical Investigation of the Relevant
Skills of Forensic Accountants
JAMES A. DIGABRIELE
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012
MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY
MONTCLAIR, NEW JERSEY
ABSTRACT. The author investigated
whether views of the relevant skills of
forensic accountants differ among forensic
accounting practitioners, accounting aca-
demics, and users of forensic accounting
services. Universities and colleges are cur-
rently considering adding forensic account-
ing courses to their curriculum. The results
of the present study provide much-needed
guidance to educators for the develop-
ment of forensic accounting curriculum by
identifying pertinent skills to accompany a
program of study.
Keywords: financial deception, forensic
accountant, relevant skills
Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications
F rom business, government, regu-
latory authorities, and the courts,
evidence indicates that a higher level of
expertise is necessary to analyze current
complicated financial transactions and
events (Rezaee, Crumbley, & Elmore,
2006). As a result, forensic account-
ing has been thrown into the forefront
of the crusade against financial decep-
tion (Ramaswamy, 2005; Rezaee et
al., 2006). Bolgna and Linquist (1995)
defined forensic accounting as the
application of financial skills and an
investigative mentality to unresolved
issues, conducted within the context of
the rules of evidence.
Research continuously confirms that
preventing fraud and uncovering decep-
tive accounting practices are in strong
demand as companies respond to closer
scrutiny of their financial activities by
shareholders and government agencies
(Kahan, 2006). The Federal Bureau of
Investigation recently estimated that
white-collar crime costs the United States
more than $300 billion annually (KPMG
Forensic, 2003). Many of these crimes
are difficult to identify because the per-
petrators have concealed their activities
through a series of complex transactions.
Usually large volumes of financial infor-
mation are involved, and the complex-
ity of these investigations can strain a
company’s resources (Brooks, Riley,
& Thomas, 2005; Kahan). In addition,
according to an American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA;
2004) article, the use of forensic account-
ing procedures to detect financial report-
ing fraud should be increased. The arti-
cle argued that forensic accountants and
financial statement auditors have differ-
ent mindsets. Hence, audit teams need to
be trained to incorporate more forensic
accounting procedures into their audit
practices and to retain more forensic spe-
cialists to help detect problems (AICPA;
Institute of Management & Administra-
tion, 2004).
Forensic accountants currently apply
their unique expertise to an array of diverse
assignments and are often hired to deter-
mine whether there has been any inten-
tional misrepresentation associated with
a company’s financial records. Fraudu-
lent misrepresentation can range from
overvaluation of inventory and improper
capitalization of expenses to misstatement
of earnings and embezzlement (Harris &
Brown, 2000; Messmer, 2004).
Organizations also hire forensic
accountants for guidance when evalu-
ating potential business transactions.
Forensic accountants assess a com-
pany’s true worth during a merger or
acquisition and ensure that a purchaser
is knowledgeable about the target firm’s
financial situation and value, while
looking for signs of suspicious account-
ing activity (Harris & Brown, 2000).
Forensic accountants often provide
accounting expertise during existing or
July/August 2008 331
 pending litigation. This work is primar-
ily focused on (a) quantifying dam-
ages in cases of personal injury, product
liability, contract disputes, and intellec-
tual property and (b) uncovering hidden
assets in complicated matrimonial law
cases. These types of services may cul-
minate in the forensic accountant’s pro-
viding expert witness testimony (Durts-
chi, 2003; Messmer, 2004; Peterson &
Reider, 2001; Ramaswamy, 2005).
Forensic accountants also play an
important role in government. They
work for agencies such as the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation, the Central
Intelligence Agency, and the Internal
Revenue Service. Forensic accountants
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012
in this role look for signs of suspi-
cious financial activity and fraud by
individuals and businesses. In addition,
forensic accountants have assumed a
more visible role in helping the govern-
ment evaluate accounting and banking
records of suspected terrorists (Brooks
et al., 2005).
In this study, I used a survey to investi-
gate whether differences exist in views of
the relevant skills of forensic accountants
among forensic accounting practitioners,
accounting academics, and users of foren-
sic accounting services. Many universi-
ties and colleges are currently considering
adding forensic accounting courses to their
curriculum or already have; this evolution
has unearthed an absence regarding the
significant skill-set outcome that should
accompany forensic accounting educa-
tion. The results of the present research
provide much-needed guidance that will
further assist educators with the develop-
ment of forensic accounting curriculum
by empirically identifying the views of
what the important skills of a forensic
accountant are among three major stake-
holders: forensic accounting practitioners,
accounting academics, and users of foren-
sic accounting services.
Review of the Literature
Two types of literature motivated this
study: (a) the academic stream, which
ranges from forensic accounting course
coverage to course identification and
recommendation, and (b) the practitio-
ner stream, which suggests the skills
that forensic accountants use in prac-
tice. According to the 2006 Association
332 Journal of Education for Business
of Certified Fraud Examiners’ Report
to the Nation on Occupational Fraud
and Abuse, fraud costs companies in
the United States $652 billion annually.
This statistic emphasizes the importance
of forensic accounting education.
Groomer and Heinz (1994) found that
fraud-related topics were taught in more
than 31% of examined internal auditing
courses. Rezaee, Reinstein, and Lander
(1996) found that few universities offer
a fraud or forensic accounting course.
Rezaee and Burtin (1997) concluded
that the demand for forensic account-
ing services will continue to increase.
In addition, Rezaee and Burtin found
that the academics and certified fraud
examiners differed in opinion of how
forensic accounting courses should be
offered. Academics preferred to inte-
grate forensic accounting topics in the
existing accounting courses, whereas
the certified fraud examiners preferred
offering a separate course. Buckhoff and
Schrader (2000) examined the extent
to which academic institutions across
the United States are offering forensic
accounting courses. They found that,
on average, universities considered it
moderately important to add forensic
accounting to their curriculum. Peter-
son and Reider (2001) reviewed course
syllabi of universities offering forensic
accounting courses and examined the
level of the course, learning objectives,
and course requirements. Their find-
ings indicated that accounting educators
agree that there is a need for universities
to provide forensic accounting educa-
tion. Rezaee (2002) examined a sample
of undergraduate and graduate account-
ing students, and the results indicated
that the students believed that forensic
accounting is a viable career option but
is not getting the proper attention in col-
leges and universities.
The National Institute of Justice
(2005) prepared a model curriculum
guide for education and training in
fraud and forensic accounting to aid
academic institutions, public and pri-
vate organizations, practitioners, fac-
ulty, and prospective students. Rezaee
et al. (2006) surveyed opinions of prac-
titioners and academics regarding the
importance, relevance, and delivery of
forensic accounting education. Their
results indicated that the demand for and
interest in forensic accounting will con-
tinue to increase. Both practitioners and
academics viewed accounting education
as relevant and beneficial to accounting
students. However, the groups differed
in opinions regarding topical coverage
of forensic accounting.
Harris and Brown (2000) have iden-
tified specialized skills and technical
abilities of forensic accountants. Foren-
sic accountants are usually familiar with
criminal and civil law and understand
courtroom procedures and expecta-
tions. Those researchers also stressed
investigative skills, including theories,
methods, and patterns of fraud abuse.
Forensic accountants think creatively to
consider and understand the tactics that
a fraud perpetrator may use to commit
and conceal fraudulent acts. Addition-
ally, they need to clearly and concisely
communicate findings to various par-
ties, including those with less knowl-
edge of accounting and auditing. Grippo
and Ibex (2003) illustrated that the most
important skills of forensic accountants
come from experience in accounting and
auditing, taxation, business operations,
management, internal controls, interper-
sonal relationships, and communication.
Messmer (2004) stated that successful
forensic accountants must have analyti-
cal abilities, strong written and verbal
communication skills, a creative mind-
set, and business acumen. They must be
able to interview and elicit information
from potentially uncooperative people
and possess a strong amount of skepti-
cism. Ramaswamy (2005) believed that
forensic accountants are distinctively
positioned to be able to uncover finan-
cial deceptions, their prominent skills
being an in-depth knowledge of finan-
cial statements, the ability to critically
analyze them, and a thorough under-
standing of fraud schemes. Ramaswamy
also believed that forensic accountants
should have the ability to comprehend
the internal control systems of corpora-
tions and be able to assess their risks.
Last, knowledge of psychology helps
forensic accountants to understand the
impulses behind criminal behavior that
motivate and encourage financial decep-
tion. Also, (a) interpersonal and commu-
nication skills that aid in disseminating
information about the company’s ethics
and (b) an understanding of criminal
 and civil law and of the legal system
and court procedures are skills that aid
forensic accountants.
The academic literature identifies
forensic accounting courses and con-
tent, whereas the practitioner literature
suggests skills necessary in practice.
However, the literatures have not yet
empirically identified the views of three
major stakeholders—accounting aca-
demics, forensic accounting practitio-
ners, and users of forensic accounting
services—regarding which skills are
important for forensic accountants.
The three aforementioned stake-
holders will be significant in shap-
ing the future of forensic accounting.
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012
Accounting academics will educate
future students who will become foren-
sic accountants; the practitioners must
be competent in their practice; and the
users (attorneys) have the potential to
structure changes in forensic account-
ing as the market for these services are
dictated through case law.
The present study adds the neces-
sary incremental contribution to the
literature that identifies relevant skills
of forensic accountants and whether
any differences exist in the views of
those skills among the three significant
stakeholders. In light of the growing
importance of forensic accounting in
the business environment, this study
provides useful information for faculty
members and universities working to
implement forensic accounting educa-
tion in their curriculum. As this thriving
area of accounting continues to evolve
it will be necessary to ensure that the
correct skill set results from forensic
accounting education.
METHOD
I conducted a nationwide survey on
a random sample of 1,500 accounting
academics, forensic accounting practi-
tioners, and users of forensic account-
ing services. For this study, I classified
attorneys as the primary users of foren-
sic accounting services. The sample
was compiled as follows: I retrieved (a)
500 random e-mail addresses of fac-
ulty members from accounting depart-
ments of various universities across the
nation; (b) 500 random e-mail addresses
of forensic accounting practitioners from
several membership databases—the
National Association of Certified Valua-
tion Analyst (NACVA), American Board
of Forensic Accounting (ABFA), Asso-
ciation of Certified Fraud Examiners
(ACFE), and the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
business valuation and forensic and liti-
gation services section (BVFLS)—and
(c) 500 random e-mail addresses from
a Google search of attorneys practicing
commercial litigation, matrimonial law,
and damages. These types of attorneys
often use forensic accountants for a range
of damage, valuation, and fraud cases.
The likelihood that an attorney who prac-
tices commercial litigation, matrimonial
law, and damages does not use a forensic
accountant is slim because these types
of attorneys are the focus of marketing
efforts for accounting firms providing
forensic accounting services.
I prepared, pretested, and e-mailed
the survey instrument (see the Appen-
dix). Participants were e-mailed using
http://www.surveymonkey.com and were
asked the extent to which they agreed
with statements addressing each of nine
competencies that were deemed by prior
literature to be important skills of a
forensic accountant. The agreement rat-
ings were made on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).
Initially, I computed descriptive statis-
tics for group membership (frequencies
and percentages) as well as the responses
related to the nine competencies (both per-
centages within each category and over-
all means and standard deviations). The
correlations among the nine items were
also computed. A principal component
analysis was then performed to exam-
ine the underlying structure of the nine
items. The eigenvalues-greater-than-one
rule was used to determine the number
of components to extract and rotate. The
eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule states
that the number of factors to be extracted
should be equal to the number of factors
having an eigenvalue (variance) greater
than 1. The rationale for choosing this
particular value is that a factor must have
variance at least as large as that of a single
standardized original variable. Descriptive
statistics (ranges, means, standard devia-
tions, and internal consistency reliability
coefficients) were then computed for the
composite scores resulting from the prin-
cipal component analysis.
I used two-tailed tests and a Cron-
bach’s α level of .05 for all inferential
analyses. The main set of analyses con-
sisted of a series of one-way analyses of
variances (ANOVAs) comparing practi-
tioners, academics, and users in terms
of their ratings of the importance of the
nine competencies. When the ANOVAs
were statistically significant, follow-up
tests were performed by using Tukey’s
HSD. An alternative set of analyses
was performed by using nonparamet-
ric Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare the
importance ratings of the three groups.
In addition to the ANOVAs and Kruskal-
Wallis tests performed on the individual
items, similar procedures were used to
compare the three groups on the com-
posite scores.
RESULTS
Item Descriptive Statistics
A total of 252 individuals completed
the survey. Of these, 102 (40.5%) were
practitioners, 72 (28.6%) were users,
and 78 (31.0%) were academicians.
The overall response rate was 16.80%.
Descriptive statistics for the nine areas
of competency are shown in Table
1, including the percentage in each
response category and the overall means
and standard deviations. The items rated
as most important were critical thinking
(M = 3.63, SD = 0.67), deductive analy-
sis (M = 3.60, SD = 0.66), and written
communication (M = 3.55, SD = 0.61).
The items rated as least important were
specific legal knowledge (M = 2.96, SD
= 0.86), composure (M = 3.29, SD =
0.67), and unstructured problem solving
(M = 3.34, SD = 0.89).
The correlations among the impor-
tance ratings for the nine competencies
are shown in Table 2. The highest cor-
relations were between oral communi-
cation and written communication (r
= .73) and between deductive analysis
and critical thinking (r = .69), whereas
the lowest were between unstructured
problem solving and oral communica-
tion (r = .24) and between unstructured
problem solving and written communi-
cation (r = .30). All correlations were
statistically significant (p < .0005).
July/August 2008 333
 TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentage of Respondents (N = 252) Choosing Each Competency Item

Strongly Strongly
Item M SD disagree (0) Disagree (1) Neutral (2) Agree (3) agree (4)

1. Deductive
analysis 3.60 0.66 0.8 1.2 1.6 29.8 66.7
2. Critical
thinking 3.63 0.67 0.4 2.0 2.4 25.0 70.2
3. Unstructured
problem solving 3.34 0.89 0.4 4.8 11.5 27.4 56.0
4. Investigative
flexibility 3.48 0.67 0.0 1.2 6.3 36.1 56.3
5. Analytical
proficiency 3.53 0.66 0.4 0.8 4.8 33.3 60.7
6. Oral
communication 3.46 0.67 0.0 1.6 5.2 38.5 54.8
7. Written
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012

communication 3.55 0.61 0.0 0.8 3.6 35.3 60.3

8. Specific legal
knowledge 2.93 0.86 0.0 8.3 15.1 51.6 25.0
9. Composure 3.29 0.67 0.0 1.2 8.7 49.6 40.5

TABLE 2. Correlations Among Competency Items

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Deductive analysis —
2. Critical thinking .69 —
3. Unstructured problem solving .45 .43 —
4. Investigative flexibility .58 .50 .50 —
5. Analytical proficiency .53 .47 .38 .54 —
6. Oral communication .35 .39 .24 .43 .43 —
7. Written communication .42 .48 .30 .46 .44 .73 —
8. Specific legal knowledge .43 .50 .55 .45 .46 .43 .45 —
9. Composure .43 .47 .31 .46 .36 .61 .54 .48 —

Note. All correlations were statistically significant at p < .0005. N = 252.

Principal Component Analysis
I performed a principal component
analysis on the nine competency items
to determine whether there were any
relevant groupings of items and, if so,
what these groupings were. Two com-
ponents had eigenvalues greater than 1
(4.71 and 1.11), and therefore I rotated
two components using varimax. The
rotated component loadings are shown
in Table 3. The first rotated compo-
nent had a sum of squared loadings of
3.26, explaining 36.20% of the variance
among the nine items. Six of the items
had loadings of .63 or greater on this
component (deductive analysis, critical
thinking, unstructured problem solving,
investigative flexibility, analytical pro-
ficiency, and specific legal knowledge).
Therefore, this component was labeled
knowledge and ability. The second
component had a sum of squared load-
ings of 2.57, accounting for 28.53% of
the variance. Three items had loadings
of .73 or greater on this component (oral
communication, written communica-
tion, and composure). This component
was labeled performance. Together, the
two components accounted for 64.73%
of the variance among the nine items.
Two composite scores were comput-
ed to operationalize these components
by summing the scores on the items
from each component. The correlation
between these two scores was .61 (p <
.0005). Descriptive statistics for the two
composite scores are shown in Table 4.
Knowledge and ability composite
scores ranged from 6–24 with a mean
of 20.51 (SD = 3.36). Scores on the
performance composite ranged from
2–3 with a mean of 10.31 (SD = 1.69).
Internal consistency reliability coeffi-
cients (Cronbach’s α) were computed
for the two composites and were ade-
quate (.85 for knowledge and ability
and .83 for performance).
Inferential Analyses
Group Differences on Competency
Items
I performed 9 one-way ANOVAs to
determine if the three groups (practitio-
ners, users, and academicians) differed
in their ratings of the importance of

334 Journal of Education for Business


TABLE 3. Rotated Principal Component Loadings of Competency Items
Item or statistic Knowledge and ability
1. Deductive analysis
2. Critical thinking
3. Unstructured problem solving
4. Investigative flexibility
5. Analytical proficiency
6. Oral communication
7. Written communication
8. Specific legal knowledge
9. Composure
Sum of squared loadings
Percentage of variance explained
Note. N = 252.
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012
the nine competencies. Tukey’s HSD
follow-up tests were used when the
ANOVA was statistically significant.
Table 5 presents the mean scores on
each competency item as a function of
group membership. The first ANOVA,
performed on deductive analysis impor-
tance ratings, was statistically signifi-
cant, F(2, 249) = 5.64, p = .004. Fol-
low-up HSD tests indicated that users
(M = 3.40, SD = 0.90) rated deductive
analysis as less important than did aca-
demicians (M = 3.76, SD = 0.43), p =
.003, but that neither of these groups
differed from practitioners (M = 3.63,
SD = 0.58).
The second ANOVA compared the
three groups on critical-thinking impor-
tance ratings and was statistically sig-
nificant, F(2, 249) = 7.53, p = .001. Fol-
low-up HSD tests indicated that users
(M = 3.39, SD = 0.85) rated critical
thinking as less important than practi-
tioners (M = 3.67, SD = 0.55), p = .017,
and less important than academicians
(M = 3.79, SD = 0.57), p = .001. Practi-
tioners and academicians did not differ
in their ratings of the importance of
critical thinking.
The third ANOVA compared the rat-
ings of the importance of unstructured
problem solving among the three groups.
The result was statistically significant,
F(2, 249) = 26.14, p < .0005, indicat-
ing that the groups differed. Follow-up
HSD tests indicated that users (M = 2.78,
SD = 0.98) felt that unstructured prob-
lem solving was less important than did
practitioners (M = 3.45, SD = 0.86), p <
.0005, and academicians (M = 3.71, SD =
Performance
.77 .25
.72 .33
.79 .03
.71 .33
.63 .35
.18 .90
.28 .83
.64 .36
.33 .73
3.26 2.57
36.20 28.53
0.51), p < .0005. Again, practitioners and
academicians did not differ.
The fourth ANOVA compared ratings
of the importance of investigative flex-
ibility and was statistically significant,
F(2, 249) = 11.67, p < .0005. HSD tests
indicated that users (M = 3.17, SD =
0.79) rated investigative flexibility as less
important than either practitioners (M =
3.61, SD = 0.57), p < .0005, or academi-
cians (M = 3.59, SD = 0.59), p < .0005.
The importance ratings of practitioners
and academicians did not differ.
The fifth ANOVA compared the ana-
lytical proficiency importance ratings
and was statistically significant, F(2,
249) = 5.41, p = .005. Follow-up HSD
tests indicated that users (M = 3.33, SD
= 0.71) rated analytical proficiency as
less important than academicians (M =
3.68, SD = 0.50), p = .004. Practitioners’
ratings of the importance of analytical
proficiency (M = 3.56, SD = 0.71) did
not differ from either users’ or academi-
cians’ ratings.
The sixth ANOVA was performed to
compare the ratings of the importance
of oral communication. The ANOVA
was not statistically significant, F(2,
249) = 2.52, p = .083, indicating that
the three groups’ ratings of the impor-
tance of oral communication did not
differ. The seventh ANOVA compared
the ratings of the importance of written
communication and was also not sta-
tistically significant, F(2, 249) = 1.19,
p = .305.
The eighth ANOVA compared the
importance ratings of specific legal
knowledge among the three groups. The
result was statistically significant, F(2,
249) = 13.74, p < .0005, indicating that
there were differences among the three
groups. HSD tests indicated that the
importance ratings of users (M = 2.51,
SD = 1.02) were lower than those of
practitioners (M = 3.05, SD = 0.75), p <
.0005, and lower than those of academi-
cians (M = 3.17, SD = 0.67), p < .0005,
and that the ratings from practitioners
and academicians did not differ.
I performed the final ANOVA to com-
pare the ratings of the importance of
composure among the three groups. This
ANOVA was not statistically significant,
F(2, 249) = 0.90, p = .408. This indicates
that users, practitioners, and academi-
cians did not differ with respect to their
ratings of the importance of composure.
I performed a supplementary set of
analyses by using nonparametric tech-
niques to compare the importance rat-
ings of the three groups. Kruskal-Wallis
tests were used to compare the ratings
of the nine competencies. The pattern
of results (i.e., statistical significance at
an α level of .05 or not) was identical to
that of the ANOVAs and therefore I do
not discuss these analyses in detail.
Group Differences on Competency
Composites
In addition to examining differences
among the three groups on the specif-
ic competency items, I performed two
ANOVAs to compare the three groups on
the composites scores for (a) knowledge
and ability and (b) performance. Table 6
shows the mean scores on the two com-
posites as a function of group. The first
ANOVA was performed by comparing
the knowledge and ability scores for the
three groups, and the result was statisti-
cally significant, F(2, 249) = 20.92, p <
.0005. Follow-up HSD tests indicated
that users (M = 18.58, SD = 4.22) had
lower scores than either practitioners
(M = 20.96, SD = 2.79), p < .0005, or
academicians (M = 21.69, SD = 2.24),
p < .0005, but that practitioners and
academicians did not differ.
The second ANOVA compared the
scores on the performance scale for
the three groups. The results of this
test were not statistically significant,
F(2, 249) = 1.55, p = .214. This find-
ing indicates that the three groups did
July/August 2008 335
 TABLE 4. Descriptive Statistics for Competency Composite Scores

Composite Min. Max. M SD α

Knowledge and ability 6 24 20.51 3.36 .85

Performance 3 12 10.31 1.69 .83

Note. N = 252.

TABLE 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Competency Items, as a Function of Group

Practitioners Users Academicians

Factor M SD M SD M SD
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012

1. Deductive analysis 3.63 0.58 3.40 0.90 3.76 0.43

2. Critical thinking 3.67 0.55 3.39 0.85 3.79 0.57
3. Unstructured problem solving 3.45 0.86 2.78 0.98 3.71 0.51
4. Investigative flexibility 3.61 0.57 3.17 0.79 3.59 0.59
5. Analytical proficiency 3.56 0.71 3.33 0.71 3.68 0.50
6. Oral communication 3.58 0.60 3.39 0.76 3.38 0.65
7. Written communication 3.59 0.57 3.46 0.73 3.59 0.52
8. Specific legal knowledge 3.05 0.75 2.51 1.02 3.17 0.67
9. Composure 3.36 0.66 3.25 0.75 3.24 0.63

Note. N = 252. Group ns: practitioners = 102, users = 72, academicians = 78.

TABLE 6. Means and Standard Deviations of Competency Composites, as a Function of Group

Practitioners Users Academicians

Item M SD M SD M SD

Knowledge and ability 20.96 2.79 18.58 4.22 21.69 2.24

Performance 10.53 1.51 10.10 2.05 10.22 1.53

Note. N = 252. Group ns: practitioners = 102, users = 72, academicians = 78.

not differ in their scores on the perfor-
mance composite.
DISCUSSION
I asked practitioners, academics, and
users of forensic accounting services
10 questions that pertained to their
views about what skills are inherently
important for being a forensic accoun-
tant. In consideration of the barrage
of recent financial reporting scan-
dals, deductive analysis appears to be
necessary and essential for forensic
accountants to meet the objective of
uncovering a potential financial fraud.
Forensic accounting courses taking
aim at financial misrepresentations
should incorporate course objectives
to meet this ability.
An expert witness must be able to
discern fact from fiction to maintain
credible testimony. Courses developed
in this area should emphasize the ability
to remove any noncorroborated opin-
ions from expert reports and testimony.
This skill was rated as one of the more
important ones (see Table 1).
Educators have based accounting
education on compliance with rules and
procedures. Forensic accounting is dif-
ferent because problem solving becomes
more of an improvised approach rather
than a structured plan. This skill type
is in direct opposition to traditional
accounting skills.
The results of the present study
indicate that practitioners and aca-
demics agree on the importance of
forensic accountants’ moving away
from a narrow approach and applying
a more holistic technique (see Table
5). These findings further illustrate
the need for a more open-minded skill
set in accounting. Considering the
postfinancial-fraud regulatory envi-
ronment, researchers can infer that
the ability to solve a financial puzzle
with an incomplete set of pieces is
an extremely important characteristic
for forensic accountants. Practitioners

336 Journal of Education for Business

 and academics agree on the impor-
tance of this skill (see Table 5).
Almost 55% of all respondents
strongly agreed that oral communica-
tion is an important skill for forensic
accountants (see Table 1). This skill is
particularly important in expert testimo-
ny when a forensic accountant explains
findings to a judge and jury. Each group
agreed on the importance of forensic
accountants’ possessing the ability to
effectively communicate in writing, and
60% of all respondents agreed strongly
(see Table 1). Expert reports are routine-
ly scrutinized, and the need to convey
findings properly is paramount.
Academics and practitioners agreed
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012
that forensic accountants should have a
working knowledge of the legal process
and the rules of evidence (see Table 5).
One of the interesting results of this
study is the fact that users of foren-
sic accounting services did not view
this as an important skill. Because the
users were attorneys, they may have
read too far into the question, possibly
thinking that forensic accountants may
practice law without proper licensing.
However, the main point of the question
was to emphasize the need for forensic
accountants to understand certain legal
issues. Almost 50% of the respondents
agreed that maintaining composure is
an important skill for forensic accoun-
tants. The most highly rated area of
need for this skill was that of expert
testimony in either a deposition or a
court. The composure of an expert can
be an integral component in the ultimate
case outcome.
This study also illustrates two dis-
tinct areas of competency based on the
items with high loadings in the prin-
cipal component analysis (see Table
3): (a) knowledge and ability and (b)
performance. The knowledge and abil-
ity component relates to whether an
individual has the background knowl-
edge and thinking skills to be effec-
tive, whereas the performance compo-
nent relates to the individual’s ability to
turn this knowledge and ability into an
effective presentation. The groups dif-
fered on all six knowledge and ability
items but on none of the performance
items. They also differed on the knowl-
edge and ability composite but not on
the performance composite (see Table
6). The general trend was for users to
rate knowledge and ability items as less
important than they rated the other two
groups. The most logical reason for this
is that attorneys are the end users of
forensic accounting services and are
more concerned with the effective-
ness of a forensic accountant than with
the prerequisite components. Forensic
accounting educators may consider seg-
regating course content on the basis of
these two distinct areas.
The identification of relevant skills
of forensic accountants illustrated in the
results of this study contributes to the
literature in forensic accounting educa-
tion by identifying the proficiencies that
need to be merged with course content.
Conclusion
The increasing demands in the current
regulatory, legal, and business environ-
ments should stimulate accounting pro-
grams to emphasize and embrace foren-
sic accounting. This research surveyed
practitioners, academics, and users of
forensic accounting services throughout
the United States to determine whether
there are differences in views of the
relevant skills suggested in the practitio-
ner literature. The results indicate that
practitioners and academics agree that
critical thinking, unstructured problem
solving, investigative flexibility, analyti-
cal proficiency, and legal knowledge are
important skills of forensic accountants.
Users of forensic accounting services
rated deductive analysis as less impor-
tant than did academics; however, both
groups agreed with practitioners, who
viewed deductive analysis as impor-
tant (as illustrated in the second highest
mean values among all skills surveyed).
The groups did not differ on oral com-
munication, written communication,
or composure rankings. These results
show that some skills are relevant and
important to the outcome of forensic
accounting education. Educators can
use these skills as a guide to direct
academic curriculum with the proper
outcome objective.
The limitations of the present study
may be a bias in understanding the rel-
evance of a particular skill of forensic
accountants. In addition, as an attri-
bute that is inherent to survey research,
nonresponse bias was another poten-
tial limitation. The only way to evalu-
ate this limitation was to compare late
responses to earlier ones. There were no
significant differences.
Future researchers in this area could
progress to classifying skills for identi-
fied courses. For example, a course on
forensic legal knowledge might more
appropriately have an objective of writ-
ten and oral communication than one of
analytical proficiency.
NOTES
Dr. James A. DiGabriele teaches forensic
accounting and fraud examination at Montclair
State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. James A. DiGabriele, Mont-
clair State University, Accounting Law Taxation,
1 Normal Avenue, Montclair, NJ 07052, USA.
E-mail: jim@dmcpa.com
REFERENCES
American Institute of Certified Public Accoun-
tants (AICPA). (2004, July). Forensic services,
audits, and corporate governance: Bridging
the gap (Discussion memorandum). New York:
Author.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2006).
Report to the nation on occupational fraud and
abuse. Austin, TX: Author.
Bolgna, J. G., & Linquist, R. J. (1995). Fraud
auditing and forensic accounting. New York:
Wiley.
Brooks, R. C., Riley, R. A., & Thomas, J. (2005).
Detecting and preventing the financing of ter-
rorist activities: A role for government accoun-
tants. Journal of Government Financial Man-
agement, 54, 12–18.
Buckoff, T. A., & Schrader, R. A. (2000). The
teaching of forensic accounting in the Unit-
ed States. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 1,
135–146.
Durtschi, C. (2003). The Tallahassee bean coun-
ters: A problem-based learning case in forensic
auditing. Issues in Accounting Education, 18,
137–174.
Grippo, F. J., & Ibex, T. (2003). Introduction to
forensic accounting. National Public Accoun-
tant, 4, 4–8.
Groomer, S. M., & Heinz, J. (1994). A survey of
advanced auditing courses in the United States
and Canada. Issues in Accounting Education,
9, 91–108.
Harris, C. K., & Brown, A. M. (2000). The quali-
ties of a forensic accountant. Pennsylvania CPA
Journal, 71, 2–3.
Institute of Management & Administration
(IOMA). (2004, September). Report on Finan-
cial Analysis, Planning & Reporting, (9)4. New
York: Author.
Kahan, S. (2006). Sherlock Holmes enters
accounting: Dramatic increase in fraud brings
more CPA sleuths into the industry. Accounting
Today, 20, 8.
KPMG Forensic. (2003). Fraud survey. Montvale,
NJ: Author.
Messmer, M. (2004). Exploring options in forensic
accounting. National Public Accountant, 5, 9–20.
July/August 2008 337
 National Institute of Justice. (2005, December).
Education and training in fraud and forensic
accounting: A guide for educational institutions,
stakeholder organizations, faculty and students
(special report). Manuscript in preparation.
Peterson, B., & Reider, B. (2001). An examina-
tion of forensic accounting courses: Content
and learning activities. Journal of Forensic
Accounting, 2, 25–42.
Ramaswamy, V. (2005). Corporate governance and
the forensic accountant. CPA Journal, 75, 68–70.
Rezaee, Z. (2002). Forensic accounting practices,
education, and certifications. Journal of Foren-
sic Accounting, 3, 207–223.
Rezaee, Z., & Burtin, E. J. (1997). Forensic
accounting education: Insights from academi-
cians and certified fraud examiner practitioners.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 12, 479–489.
Rezaee, Z., Crumbely, L. D., & Elmore, R. C.
(2006). Forensic accounting education: A sur-
vey of academicians and practitioners. Advanc-
es in Accounting Education. Manuscript in
preparation.
Rezaee, Z., Reinstein, A., & Lander, G. H.
(1996). Integrating forensic accounting into the
accounting curriculum. Accounting Education,
1, 147–162.

APPENDIX
Survey Instrument

1. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is deductive analysis—the ability to take aim at financial contradictions that
do not fit in the normal pattern of an assignment.
2. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is critical thinking—the ability to decipher between opinion and fact.
3. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is unstructured problem solving—the ability to approach each situation
(inherently unique) prepared to solve problems with an unstructured approach.
Downloaded by [National Cheng Kung University] at 00:55 15 February 2012

4. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is investigative flexibility—the ability to move away from standardized audit
procedures and thoroughly examine situations for atypical warning signs.
5. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is analytical proficiency—the ability to examine for what should be provided
rather than what is provided.
6. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is oral communication—the ability to effectively communicate in speech via
expert testimony and general explanation the bases of opinion.
7. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is written communication—the ability to effectively communicate in writing
via reports, charts, graphs, and schedules the bases of opinion.
8. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is specific legal knowledge—the ability to understand basic legal processes
and legal issues including the rules of evidence.
9. An important skill requirement of a forensic accountant is composure—the ability to maintain a calm attitude in pressured situations.
10. Please identify your role with regard to forensic accounting. Select only ONE choice.
Practitioner User of forensic accounting services Academic

Note. Questions 1–9 were answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree).

338 Journal of Education for Business