Search results

Systematic reviews – that is, research reviews that are rigorous and follow scientific methods – are increasingly important for assisting stakeholders in implementing evidence-based decision making for children and adults with disabilities. Yet, systematic reviews vary greatly in quality and are therefore not a panacea. Distinguishing “good” reviews from “bad” reviews requires time and skills related to the appraisal of systematic reviews. The purpose of this chapter is to inform stakeholders (i.e., practitioners, administrators, policy makers) of evidence-based information sources that provide synopses (i.e., appraisals) of systematic reviews, to provide guidance in reading and interpreting the synopses of various sources, and to propose how to make sense of multiple synopses from different sources for the same systematic review. A secondary purpose of this chapter is to illustrate how stakeholders can conduct their own appraisals if synopses are not available.

This paper investigates state auditors’ decisions regarding the isolation or projection of sample misstatements to underlying sample populations. Seventy-eight state auditors completed four treatment cases that incorporate the complete 2×2 manipulation of intentional/unintentional and systematic/non-systematic misstatements in different case scenarios, enabling a test of the independent variables both across and within case scenarios.

The results indicate that both across and within case scenarios, auditors tend to project systematic misstatements more often than they project non-systematic misstatements. However, the auditors’ isolation/projection decisions are generally not influenced by whether the sample misstatements are intentional or unintentional.

Today, firm performance must be measured not only on traditional metrics but also on those that reflect the changing imperatives and new metric knowledge. Thus, the focus of managers, investors, and researchers is shifting from rubrics like sales and profitability to growth as a more appropriate measure of firm performance. We aim to highlight the effects that growth of a firm can have on the level of its systematic risk. Using a sample of 203 firms across nine industries taken from the Indian manufacturing sector for a period of 17 years (1998–2014), we develop and test a panel vector autoregressive (VAR) model to analyze the causal relationship between growth aspects and systematic risk of firms. Results depict that a growth option available to firms increase their level of systematic risk and the risk decreases when firms start chasing this growth by increasing their assets in place. Sustainable growth rate, which depicts the growth potential of firms, plays an important role in reducing the level of systematic risk. The findings of this chapter are relevant to managers who think that growth is always beneficial.

This chapter provides a roadmap for a systematic literature review built around the guiding questions of basic research design. First, we highlight the relevance and development of systematic literature reviews in tourism research. Second, we put the systematic review into perspective by outlining its characteristics and by clarifying the methodological assumptions. Third, we bring together recommendations based on previous research and review guidelines and present a step-by-step tutorial for a systematic literature review. From this chapter, readers will understand the foundations of systematic literature reviews, will be able to apply the methodology to their review projects and are introduced to further readings and best practice examples.

This study aims to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk. The theoretical framework used in this study is based on agency and resource dependency theories.

Using a panel data set of 788 firms listed in the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) Emerging Markets index from 2015 to 2020, the authors apply Panel-Corrected Standard Error estimation method to test the three proposed hypotheses and the two-stage least squares method is adopted for the endogenous test.

The results suggest that board-specific skills diversity (BSSD) and board independence (BIND) have a negative impact on systematic risk. On the other hand, board gender diversity does not affect systematic risk. The findings reinforce the relevance of board diversity for reducing systematic risk and offer valuable insights for policymakers and investors, suggesting that the presence of directors with specific skills and independent directors could reduce firms’ systematic risk.

The study extends the scope of agency and resource dependency theories by suggesting that the BSSD and BIND reduce agency costs and bring critical resources to the firm’s survival.

The findings support policymakers and managers in reducing systematic risk. In addition, the results demonstrate the importance of policies that encourage board diversity and BIND.

The study demonstrates how companies can reduce systematic risk through board diversity and BIND.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk only in emerging markets.

The purpose of this paper is to explore existing and desired methodologies for systematic quality work to promote quality in preschools from the principal’s perspective.

A collaborative approach was used in this research project, and principals were asked to complete portfolio assignments. Their answers to those portfolio assignments were analysed by the research team and subsequently compared to total quality management values.

Existing and desired methodologies for systematic quality work are presented and sorted into 13 and 17 groups, respectively. The principals desire four times more methodologies than they are presently using to promote systematic quality work, and the results show that they must extend their methodologies to support TQM values.

This research is based on answers collected from 18 principals in one municipality in Sweden.

The use of the cornerstone model provides a framework to illustrate the application of TQM in preschools.

Principals struggle to find time for systemic quality work. The presented results can be used to work systematically with quality in preschools and other organizations.

This paper aims to investigate how organization capital influences different forms of corporate risk. It also explores how the relationship between organization capital and risks varies in the cross-section of firms.

To test the hypothesis, this study employs the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model using a large sample of the United States (US) data over the 1981–2019 period. It also uses an instrumental variable approach and an errors-in-variables panel regression approach to mitigate endogeneity problems.

The empirical results show that organization capital is positively related to both idiosyncratic risk and total risk but negatively related to systematic risk. The cross-sectional analysis shows that the positive relationship between organization capital and idiosyncratic risk is significantly more pronounced for the subsample of firms with high information asymmetry and human capital. Moreover, the negative relationship between organization capital and systematic risk is significantly more pronounced for firms with greater efficiency and firms facing higher industry- and economy-wide risks.

The findings have important implications for investors and policymakers. For example, since organization capital increases idiosyncratic risk and total risk but reduces systematic risk, investors should take organization capital into account in portfolio formation and risk management. Moreover, the findings lend support to the argument on the recognition of intangible assets in financial statements. In particular, the study suggests that standard-setting bodies should consider corporate reporting frameworks to incorporate the disclosure of intangible assets into financial statements, particularly given the recent surge of corporate intangible assets and their critical impact on corporate risks.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to adopt a large sample to provide systematic evidence on the relationship between organization capital and a wide range of risks at the firm level. The authors show that the effect of organization capital on firm risks differs remarkably depending on the kind of firm risk a particular risk measure captures. This study thus makes an original contribution to resolving competing views on the effect of organization capital on firm risks.

This paper aims to assess the quality of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of psychological therapy for adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) and mental health difficulties.

Four electronic databases were used: Cochrane, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus. Studies were included if they were a systematic review focused primarily on psychological therapy for adults with ID and mental health difficulties. Systematic reviews focused on anger were also considered for inclusion. These reviews were rated for quality on the Amstar-2, a quality rating tool designed to evaluate systematic reviews.

Twelve relevant systematic reviews were identified, which included seven reviews focused primarily on cognitive behavioural therapy, two on psychodynamic therapy and three on third-wave therapies. The AMSTAR-2 indicated that all 12 reviews were of “critically low” quality. Thus, there are significant problems with the evidence base.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first systematic review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of psychological therapies for people who have ID. It provides an overview of the quality of the evidence base into one place.

This paper aims to close gaps in the current literature according to whether there are differences regarding the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and systematic risk when diverse regions of the world are considered, and what the respective drivers for this relationship are. Furthermore, it tests the robustness to alternative measures for CSP and systematic risk.

This study focuses on the impact of corporate social responsibility on systematic firm risk in an international sample. The authors measure CSP emerging from a company's social responsibility efforts by utilizing a CSP rating framework that covers a variety of dimensions. The instrumental variable approach is applied to mitigate endogeneity and identify causal relationships.

The impact of overall CSP on systematic risk is most distinct for North American firms and, in descending order, weaker in Europe, Asia–Pacific and Japan. Risk mitigation applies across all four regions. However, the magnitude of impact differs. While the most critical drivers in North America and Japan include product responsibility, Europe is affected most by the employees category and Asia–Pacific by environmental innovation.

The findings help firms to control their cost of equity and investors may identify low-risk stocks by considering certain aspects of CSP.

This study distinguishes itself from previous literature addressing the connection between systematic risk and CSP by focusing on regional differences in an international sample, using the very transparent CSP measures of Asset4, identifying underlying impact drivers, and testing for robustness to alternative measures of systematic risk.

This paper aims to identify and examine the determinants of downside systematic risk in Australian listed property trusts (LPTs).

Capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and lower partial moment‐CAPM (LPM‐CAPM) are employed to compute both systematic risk and downside systematic risk. The methodology of Patel and Olsen and Chaudhry et al. is adopted to examine the determinants of systematic risk and downside systematic risk.

The results confirm that systematic risk and downside systematic risk can be individually identified. There is little evidence to support the existence of linkages between systematic risk in Australian LPTs and financial/management structure determinants. On the other hand, downside systematic risk is directly related to the leverage/management structure of a LPT. The results are also robust after controlling for the LPTs' investment characteristics and varying target rates of return.

Investors and real estate analysts should conscious with the higher returns from high leverage and internally managed LPTs. Although there is no evidence that these higher returns are related to higher systematic risk, there could be the compensation for higher downside systematic risk.

This study provides invaluable insights into the management of real estate risk in Australian LPTs with implications for REITs in other countries. Unlike previous studies of systematic risk in REITs or LPTs, this is the first study to assess downside systematic risk and explore the determinants of downside systematic risk in LPTs.