English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study compares the principles of the representational theory of measurement with accounting practices to decipher the reasons creating a gap between accounting measurement practices and the scientific practices of measurement. Representational measurement establishes measurement in social scientific disciplines such as accounting. The discussion in this study focuses on the need for accounting to provide principled arguments to justify its status as a measurement discipline. The arguments made highlight the need for possible modifications of the accounting measurement concept to deal with issues that are at least partially philosophical in nature, such as the concept of error and the passing of value representations from finite to continuum. These problems are primarily conceptual in nature. They indicate that accounting is far from a measurement discipline. Their resolution could require major changes to the accounting concept of measurement.

Implications Of The Homomorphism Definition Of Measurement On Accounting Measurement Theory