Factors Affecting Financial Effectiveness on Managerial Accounting Information of Para Rubber Industry in Thailand: Invariance Test of Model between Medium and Small Enterprises
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this research aimed at testing the invariance of the causal model of factors affecting financial effectiveness between small and medium enterprises of Para rubber industry in Thailand. The research was carried out by quantitative research type. The questionnaires were used for data collection from the executives of Financial and Accounting Department of small and medium enterprises from 765 samples. The questionnaires were delivered by mailing service and 388 questionnaires were completely received for feedbacks The Multi-Group Analysis was used by LISREL 9.30 Program. The research results revealed that the casual model of financial effectiveness between small and medium enterprises had the similarity in terms of the structural form but had the difference in terms of parameter values within the model, or had partial variance as follows: the difference between the influence line of participation in Accountant’s Budget Participation (ABP) and Job-Relevant Information (JRI), Ethics of Management Accountants (EMA) and Accountant’s Confidence (AC), Managerial Accounting Information (MAI) and Financial Effectiveness (FE), as well as Accountant’s Confidence (AC) and of Accountant’s Participation in Decision Making (APD). These were considered from the Index of Chi-Square=778.23, df=499, =1.56, P-value=0.055, RMSEA=0.054, NFI=0.97, CFI=0.99 และ RFI=0.96.
Article Details
Copyright Notice articles, information, images, etc. was published in this Journal of Yala Rajabhat University is a copyright of the journal Yala Rajabhat University. If any person or deparment wants to bring all or part of it for publish or take any action. Authorization is required in written form from the Journal of Yala Rajabhat University only.
References
2. Braam, Geert, J. M. & Nijssen, E. (2004). Performance effects of using the Balanced Scorecard: a note on the Dutch experience. Long Range Planning, 37, 335-349.
3. Cadez, S. & Guilding, C. (2008). An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 836–863.
4. Customs Department. (2015). Report of Export Rubber Outside the Kingdom [Online]. Retrieved April 6, 2016, from: http://www.customs.go.th/wps/wcm/connect/Library+cus501th/Inter netTH/11/11_3/. (in Thai)
5. Department of Industrial Works. (2016). Factory Information [Online]. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from: http://www.diw.go.th/hawk /data/factype.php. (in Thai)
6. Fiedler, F. E. (1966). The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance: A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(3), 237-264.
7. Gordon, L. A. & Narayanan, V.K. (1984). Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: An empirical investigation. Accounting Organizations Society, 9(1), 33-47.
8. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. USA: Hall International.
9. Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). (2008). Ethics Center [Online]. Retrieved September 14, 2017, from: https://www.imanet.org/career-resources/ethics-center?ssopc=1.
10. James, W. & Elmezughi, A. (2010). the combined effect of costing and performance management systems on performance, moderated by strategy: Australian context. Accounting, Accountability & Performance, 16(1), 51-84.
11. Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
12. Kren, L. (1992). Budgetary Participation and Managerial Performance: The Impact Of Information and Environmental Volatility. The Accounting Review, 67(3), 511-526.
13. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.
14. Milani, K. (1975). The relationship of participation in budget-setting to industrial supervisor performance and attitudes: a field study. The Accounting Review, 50, 274-284.
15. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D. & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562.
16. Office of Industrial Economics. (2015). Quarterly Report of Industrial Economics Conditions [Online]. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from: http://oie.go.th/sites/default/files/attachments/ industry_overview/r_octdec58.pdf. (in Thai)
17. Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion (SME). (2016). Statistical Data of SMEs [Online]. Retrieved July18, 2016, from:http://122.155.197.183/sme2015/report. (in Thai)
18. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
19. Srinivasan, N. & Tikoo, S. (1992). Effect of Locus of Control on Information Search Behavior. NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 498-504.
20. Pumkaew, S. Thongthai, M. Arukunakorn, S. & Tobprakhon, P. (2017). Cost and Performance Analysis of Rubber Plantation in the Case of Tambol Pak lor, Khok Pho District, Pattani Province. Journal of Yala Rajabhat University, 12(1), 107-116.
21. Suksawang, P. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling (1st Edition). Bangkok: Watana Panich Publishing Co., Ltd. (in Thai)
