CHAPTER 15

THE VIEWS OF TURKISH

ACCOUNTING ACADEMICS
ABOUT THE SKILLS OF THE
FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT
Süleyman Uyar and Kürşad Çavuşoğlu

ABSTRACT
Due to the developments in information technologies, new concepts and prac-
tices have emerged in the field of accounting and auditing. One of these con-
cepts is the concept of Forensic Accounting. Forensic accounting acts as a
bridge between law and accounting sciences. Academic strutting about foren-
sic accounting carried out in Turkey is increasing every day. In this study, we
aim to examine the views of Turkish accounting academicians about skills of
forensic accountant. Within this scope, we investigate whether there is any dif-
ference in views of Turkish accounting academicians by their gender, title, age,
experience and university department (faculty, vocational school, etc.). Survey
was sent to 543 Turkish accounting academicians via e-mail. 80 responses were
used as data. Data analysis was made in SPSS Statistics 17.0. Means, stand-
ard deviations and percentages were computed for items related to skills of
forensic accountant. Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used
to analyse whether there was any difference in views of Turkish accounting
academicians by their gender, title, age, experience and university department.
According to findings, the skills rated as most important by Turkish academi-
cians are, respectively, deductive analysis, critical thinking and unstructured
problem solving. The skills rated as least important by Turkish academicians
are, respectively, oral communication, investigative flexibility and analytical

Contemporary Issues in Audit Management and Forensic Accounting

Contemporary Studies in Economic and Financial Analysis, Volume 102, 245–264
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1569-3759/doi:10.1108/S1569-375920200000102018
245
246 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

proficiency. There is a significant difference in rating of the importance of

critical thinking, investigative flexibility, analytical proficiency and written
communication by gender and there is a significant difference in rating of the
importance of deductive analysis, unstructured problem solving and composure
by experience year as academician.
Keywords: Forensic accounting; forensic accountant; skill; accounting
academician; Turkish; auditing
JEL classifications: M41; M42

INTRODUCTION
Developments in information technologies have led to the transfer of many activ-
ities by enterprises to digital platforms. Globalisation and increasing competition
have accelerated this process. These technologies have advantages as well as dis-
advantages such as increasing the risk of fraud and corruption. In recent years,
financial scandals (Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat, etc.), which have emerged as a
result of fraudulent and improper transactions, have affected the economies and
the general economic system as well as the enterprises. Research conducted by the
Association of Certified Fraud Examination (ACFE) shows that businesses lose
about 5% of their income due to fraudulent transactions. The main areas where
fraudulent transactions are performed are banking and financial services, produc-
tion enterprises and government agencies.
Due to the above-mentioned developments, new concepts and practices have
emerged in the field of accounting and auditing. One of these concepts is the con-
cept of Forensic Accounting and Forensic Accountancy applications. Forensic
accounting acts as a bridge between law and accounting sciences. Forensic
accounting plays an active role in identifying and preventing fraud and corrup-
tion, and in the legal process initiated. The forensic accountancy profession is
also a wider area, including fraud auditing. Areas of activity of forensic account-
ants are not only the identification of fraud and irregularities but also areas of
activity such as litigation support and expertise.
Special emphasis is placed on fraud and fraud auditing in international
professional standards. The most important of these is the standard ‘ISA 240:
Independent Auditor’s Responsibility for Fraud and Irregularities in the Audit of
Financial Statements’ published by the International Accounting and Auditing
Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).
Forensic accounting has become a science that is gaining importance every day
due to the ever-increasing fraud and corruption in businesses. And, it has devel-
oped rapidly in many countries, especially the USA. In recent years, the interest
in forensic accountancy has increased due to the increasing importance of fraud
investigations. Research in the United States shows that the forensic accounting
profession will be one of the new jobs with the highest wage potential in the
future. Academic strutting about forensic accounting carried out in Turkey is
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 247

increasing every day. However, it cannot be said that professional development is

very advanced compared to other countries. In this study, opinions of accounting
academicians in Turkey about the skills of forensic accountants were discussed.

DEFINITION OF FORENSIC ACCOUNTING AND

ACCOUNTANT
In 1946, the concept ‘Forensic Accounting’ was coined by Maurice E. Peloubet
(Desai, 2018, p. 7). Forensic accounting is a combination of forensic science and
accounting (Eiya & Otalor, 2013, p. 19). Forensic accounting is considered as
a composite discipline that combines accounting, auditing and law (Renzhou,
2011, p. 2148).
According to Rufus (2018, p. 109), forensic accounting is utilisation of account-
ing analysis in legal environment, most often through expert witness attestation.
Renzhou (2011, p. 2148) defines forensic accounting as socio-professional activi-
ties in which a particular legal person treats and solves problems related to ille-
gal mugging, damage, value preservation, and value increasing by utilising the
law, accounting, audit and evaluation. Forensic accounting is a type of service
that enables the acquisition of accounting facts by using audit methods and pro-
cedures for the solution of legal problems that are generally financial aspects
(Karacan, 2012, p. 108).
Forensic accountants are special professionals who should apply foren-
sic accounting practices and they have gained complex information about law,
accounting, auditing and evaluation (Renzhou, 2011, p. 2148). The concept
‘Forensic Accountant’ is generally used for Certified Public Accountant (CPA)
who executes an orderly analysis, investigation, inquiry, test, inspection or exami-
nation in order to reach the truth and in order to get expert judgment by this
truth (Crumbley, 1990). Engagement of forensic accountants is not only related
to fraud but their engagement is also related to commercial litigation, calculation
of damages, examination of hidden assets during divorce, helping the landlord
whose property was stolen by fraudulent signature and protecting an elderly per-
son’s property (Kass-Shraibman & Sampath, 2011, p. 1).
Basic components of forensic accounting are accounting (forensic accounting
is a branch of accounting), special skills (forensic accountants need special skills
that accountants do not generally need), law (forensic term is related to law),
interpretation and communication (forensic accountants interpret evidences and
explain opinions of expert to clients and a trier of fact) and evidential matter
(Crain, Hopwood, Pacini, & Young, 2015, p. 3).

SERVICES PROVIDED BY FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS

While the fraud may appear to cover a large part of the application area of
forensic accounting, there are other areas of application for forensic accounting
248 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

(Silverstone, Sheetz, Pedneault, & Rudewicz, 2012, p. 6). Forensic accountants

are disposed to work in subspecialties that are interesting to them the most (Crain
et al., 2015, p. 9). The services of forensic accountants are summarised as follows:

• Fraud prevention and detection: An entity can hire a forensic accountant to

assess proactively internal control system, financial policies and accounting
procedures of the entity before any fraud is identified (Silverstone et al., 2012,
p. 10). When a fraud is committed (e.g. an employee embezzled the funds),
forensic accountants are hired to detect the fraud by gathering, reviewing evi-
dence or interviewing the alleged employee (Bhasin, 2007, p. 1004).
• Criminal investigation: Police forces can hire forensic accountants to present
their reports objectively on a professional and concise way (Eiya & Otalor,
2013, p. 21).
• Economic damage calculation: Losses, as lost earnings, lost profits, lost busi-
ness and the physical loss of property (by fire, flood or theft) are calculated by
hired forensic accountants (Silverstone et al., 2012, p. 8).
• Insurance claims: Forensic accountant calculates the amount to be claimed
from insurance policy by the party, who has suffered the loss (Moore &
Martin, 2017, p. 13).
• Bankruptcy: In bankruptcies, forensic accountants help the trustee in admin-
istration of financial affairs, investigation of hidden assets, determination
of pre-bankruptcy transfers, retrieving funds and assets (Silverstone et al.,
2012, p. 7).
• Business valuation: Forensic accountants can carry out business valuation ser-
vice to assess the assets, liabilities, assets of divorced parties, purchase and sale
prices of enterprises, buy-in or buy-out amount, estates and gifts (Crain et al.,
2015, p. 10; Silverstone et al., 2012, p. 10).
• Professional negligence: Forensic accountants can evaluate whether actions
of accounting professionals are negligent by checking their works (Moore &
Martin, 2017, p. 10).
• Mediation and arbitration: Forensic accountants can perform the services of
mediation and arbitration for dispute resolution (Crain et al., 2015, p. 10).

In litigation, a forensic accountant can have a role of party consultant, who

gives advice one of parties applying to court, and a role of party appointed expert,
who runs a report for court in accordance with the presentation format (Moore
& Martin, 2017, p. 5). In litigation, a forensic accountant can also have a role of
expert testimony that is called to witness stand to face judge-led investigation
(Moore & Martin, 2017, p. 7).
The organisations/parties that hire forensic accountants for their services are
as follows (Kass-Shraibman & Sampath, 2011, p. 20; Pazarçeviren, 2005, p. 4):

• Government
• CPA firms
• Attorneys
• Consulting companies
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 249

• Insurance firms
• Retail firms
• Police forces
• Banks
• Courts

SKILLS OF A FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT

Forensic accountants may need skills in many different scopes (Crain et al., 2015,
p. 7). Forensic accountants may use their skills to answer questions in legal cases
and assist the audit team in assessing the risk of fraud (Kreuter, 2017, p. 7).
Forensic accountants should have a wide range of accounting knowledge and
skill as forensic accounting contains many areas of accounting (Crain et al., 2015,
p. 7). For example, forensic accountants require information and skills related to
accounting information system, digital forensics and auditing procedures (Crain
et al., 2015, p. 7) and they should have the skill to critically analyse financial
statements (Bhasin, 2007, p. 1006). In this context, forensic accountant should
recognise the extraordinary financial transactions and should be conversant with
business records, bookkeeping practices beyond normal financial requirements
(Okoye & Akamobi, 2009, p. 40). Forensic accountants, in the role of expert,
should be conscious of alternative accounting or financial rules, interpretations
(Singleton & Singleton, 2010, p. 25). Forensic accountants should have skill to
apprehend internal control systems of companies and constitute control systems
(Bhasin, 2007, p. 1006).
Forensic accountants should have basic forensic skills (Rufus, 2018, p. 110).
Forensic accountants should be conversant with court system, rules of procedure
and evidence; therefore, they need to have basic knowledge of common law and
financial crimes such as money laundering, embezzlement, etc. (Crain et al., 2015,
p. 8). Forensic accountants should fundamentally apprehend the roles that crime
scene investigators, digital forensics experts, forensic scientiss, forensic laborato-
ries, prosecutors and attorneys have (Crain et al., 2015, p. 7).
Forensic accountants should be competent in computer skills (Bhasin, 2007,
p. 1006) to comprehend the role of digital forensic experts. Practical skills related
to computer enable forensic accountants to calculate and examine into a large
volume of data ranging from accounting records to memos, correspondence
(Okoye & Akamobi, 2009, p. 41).
Forensic accountants should be able to collect and interpret the evidence
because the findings of forensic accountants as expert opinion should be based
on evidence (Crain et al., 2015, p. 7). Forensic accountant should comprehend the
constitution of evidence, the purport of best and primary evidence and the form
of acceptable financial evidence for courts (Singleton & Singleton, 2010, p. 23).
Forensic accountant should have cognitive skill, that is, the ability to think
(Okoye & Akamobi, 2009, p. 40). Being interested consistently in puzzles and
mysteries gives an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills of forensic
accountants (Crain et al., 2015, p. 8). Forensic accountants require analytical
250 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

mindset and should look beyond numbers by apprehending essence of situation

(Bhasin, 2007, p. 1006).
The ability to use techniques established in psychology, such as analyse of
body language and eye movements, can help forensic accountants to understand
the suspect or solve a fraud (Crain et al., 2015, p. 8). This ability enables forensic
accountant to apprehend motivations behind criminal behaviour (Bhasin, 2007,
p. 1006).
Communication skills can be vital for forensic accountants because forensic
accountants, in the role of an expert, write reports that are subject of intensive
investigation in written statement at lawsuit, and forensic accountants in role of
expert testimony express their views on direct examination at lawsuit (Crain et
al., 2015, p. 8). As a communication skill, forensic accountants should present
financial information so that an ordinary person should understand and conclude
(Singleton & Singleton, 2010, p. 23).
Forensic accountants should develop skills of composure and robustness, for
example, when a dispute makes a state of flux for client and evidences given by
forensic accountant are objected (Moore & Martin, 2017, p. 4). Forensic account-
ants should have professional credibility because courts attach more importance
to views and findings of forensic accountants in role of expert when their cred-
ibility is high (Moore & Martin, 2017, p. 4). Forensic accountant should be able
to perform a work in unstructured situations and own a good team spirit (Okoye
& Akamobi, 2009, p. 41).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Salleh and Ab Aziz’s (2014, p. 362) study aimed to research perceptions of profes-
sionals, academicians and users of forensic accounting services on the essential
traits, basic and relevant enhanced skills and Islamic ethical values of public sec-
tor forensic accountants in Malaysia. According to the results of Salleh and Ab
Aziz’s (2014, pp. 366–367) study, respondents rated and ranked investigative abil-
ity, auditing skills, critical/strategic thinker, identifying key issues, understanding
the goals of a case as most important top five basic/core skills, and respondents
rated and ranked analyzing and interpreting financial statements and informa-
tion, fraud detection, audit evidence, asset tracing, internal controls as most
important top five relevant enhanced skills.
The aim of Digabriele’s (2008, p. 332) study was to examine whether there is
any difference in opinions about the relevant skills of forensic accountants among
forensic accounting practitioners, accounting academicians and users of foren-
sic accounting services. The results of Digabriele’s (2008, p. 333) study showed
that respondents rated critical thinking, deductive analysis, written communica-
tion as most important skills, and respondents rated specific legal knowledge,
composure, unstructured problem solving as least important skills. The results
of Digabriele’s (2008, p. 337) study indicated that there was no significant differ-
ence in oral communication, written communication or composure skills among
practitioners, academicians and users’ groups.
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 251

The purpose of Astutie and Utami’s (2013, p. 123) study was to research
whether there is any difference in preference of forensic accounting practitioners,
attorneys, accounting academicians, society about the characteristics and rele-
vant skills of forensic accountant. Astutie and Utami’s (2013, p. 125) study found
that investigation flexibility was rated higher than other relevant skills, and detail
was rated higher than other characteristics.
The study of Bhasin (2013, p. 66) aimed to review the skills needed by forensic
accountants in India. Bhasin’s (2013, p. 72) study concluded that critical think-
ing, written communication, composure, followed by specific legal knowledge,
oral communication and deductive analysis were the most important competency
skills; on the other hand, Bhasin’s (2013, p. 71) study found that investigative
flexibility, analytical proficiency and unstructured problem solving were the least
important competency skills.
The purpose of McMullen and Sanchez’s (2010, p. 32) study was to inves-
tigate how fraud and forensic professionals perceive skills and characteris-
tics required by forensic accountants. McMullen and Sanchez’s (2010, p. 37)
study indicated that analytical skills, followed by basic accounting skills, prob-
lem-solving skills and data analysis skills were ranked highest in context of
importance. McMullen and Sanchez’s (2010, p. 37) study also showed that char-
acteristics of persistence and scepticism, followed by puzzle skills and people
skills were ranked highest in context of importance.
The study of Davis, Farrell, and Ogilby (2009, p. 26) aimed to apprehend the
essential traits and characteristics, core skills and enhanced skills, with which
forensic accountants should be vested, by examining attorneys, CPAs and aca-
demics. According to the study of Davis et al. (2009, p. 10), analytical was essen-
tial trait and characteristic ranked first by attorneys, CPAs and academics. In
addition to analytical, academics ranked ethical, scepticism, inquisitive and per-
sistent as top five essential traits and characteristics (Davis et al., 2009, p. 11).
According to the study of Davis et al. (2009, p. 12), academics ranked critical/
strategic thinker, auditing skills, investigative ability, synthesising results of dis-
covery and analysis, thinking like the wrongdoer as top five core skills. Davis
et al.’s (2009, p. 14) study showed that academics ranked fraud detection, inter-
viewing skills, analyzing and interpreting financial statements and information,
electronic discovery, general knowledge of rules of evidence and civil procedure
(both of electronic discovery and general knowledge of rules of evidence and civil
procedure are at the same rank), and knowledge of relevant professional stand-
ards as top five enhanced skills.
As seen in the literature review, it has been mainly investigated whether there is
any difference in opinions or perceptions of academicians, practitioners and users
of forensic accounting services about skills of forensic accountant. This study
aims to examine the views of Turkish accounting academicians about skills of
forensic accountant. Within this scope, this study also investigates whether there
is any difference in views of Turkish accounting academicians by their gender,
title, age, experience and university department (faculty, vocational school, etc.).
This study aims to contribute to literature by showing Turkish forensic account-
ing instructors which forensic accountant skills are perceived as important.
252 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

METHOD OF RESEARCH
In this study, data were collected using a survey which consists of two sections.
In first section, there are questions regarding demographic characteristics such
as gender, age, title, experience and department. In second section, there are five-
point Likert scale items ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
regarding skills of forensic accountant, which were prepared by Digabriele (2008).
Items prepared by Digabriele (2008) were translated to Turkish by researchers.
To determine accounting academicians participating in the study, researchers
reviewed web site of Turkish Council of Higher Education and they found 973
academicians listed in accounting field on 15–16 March 2019 (https://akademik.
yok.gov.tr/AkademikArama/view/searchResultviewListAuthorAndScFields.jsp).
Only 550 academicians of those had e-mail address and seven academicians of
these 550 academicians seemed to be not functioning. Researchers sent survey to
the remaining 543 academicians via e-mail. Eighty-three academicians responded
to survey. Response rate of surveys is 15.28%. Three responses were not appro-
priate for analysis. In analyses, remaining 80 responses were used as data. Data
analysis was made in SPSS Statistics 17.0.
To measure reliability of items regarding skills of forensic accountant,
Cronbach’s alpha (α) was computed and it was found that Cronbach’s alpha (α)
for nine items was 0.751.

FINDINGS OF RESEARCH
Findings of demographic characteristics are presented in frequency and percent-
age table. Means, standard deviations and percentages are shown for items related
to skills of forensic accountant. Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests1 are
used to analyse whether there is any difference in views of Turkish accounting
academicians by their gender, title, age, experience and university department.
Demographic characteristics of 80 survey respondents are presented in Table 1.
As seen in Table 1, 67.5% of respondents are male and 32.5% of respondents are
female. In terms of age, 53.8% of respondents are between 31 and 40 years old,
33.8% of respondents are between 41 and 50 years old, 6.3% of respondents are
30 years old or less, and 6.3% of respondents are 51 years old or more. In terms
of experience as academicians, 32.5% of respondents have experience between
6 and 10 years, 22.5% of respondents have experience between 11 and 15 years,
17.5% of respondents have 20 years or more experience, 13.8% of respondents
have 5 years or less experience, 13.8% of respondents have experience between 16
and 20 years. 41.3% of respondents are assistant professors, 26.3% of respond-
ents are lecturers, 15.0% of respondents are professors, 10.0% of respondents are
research assistants and 7.5% of respondents are associate professors. 58.8% of
respondents work in the faculty, 36.3% of respondents work in vocational school
and 5.0% of respondents work in college.
Means, standard deviations and percentages for skills of forensic accountant
are presented in Table 2.
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 253

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents.

Variable Demographic Characteristic Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender Male 54 67.5

Female 26 32.5
Total 80 100.0
Age 30 years old or less 5 6.3
31–40 years old 43 53.8
41–50 years old 27 33.8
51 years old or more 5 6.3
Total 80 100.0
Experience Year As 5 years or less 11 13.8
Academician 6–10 years 26 32.5
11–15 years 18 22.5
16–20 years 11 13.8
20 years or more 14 17.5
Total 80 100.0
Title Professor 12 15.0
Associate Professor 6 7.5
Assistant Professor 33 41.3
Lecturer 21 26.3
Research Assistant 8 10.0
Total 80 100.0
University Department Faculty 47 58.8
College 4 5.0
Vocational School 29 36.3
Total 80 100.0

Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation (SD) and Percentage for

Skills of Forensic Accountant.
Disagree (0)

Disagree (1)

Neutral (2)

Agree (3)

Agree (4)
Strongly

Strongly

Skill n Mean SD

Deductive analysis 0.0 0.0 1.3 20.0 78.8 80 3.78 0.449

Critical thinking 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.3 80 3.76 0.428
Unstructured 0.0 0.0 2.5 26.3 71.3 80 3.69 0.518
problem solving
Investigative 0.0 2.5 5.0 38.8 53.8 80 3.44 0.709
flexibility
Analytical 0.0 2.5 3.8 35.0 58.8 80 3.50 0.694
proficiency
Oral communication 0.0 3.8 12.5 32.5 51.3 80 3.31 0.836
Written 1.3 0.0 6.3 28.8 63.8 80 3.54 0.728
communication
Specific legal 1.3 1.3 3.8 32.5 61.3 80 3.51 0.746
knowledge
Composure 0.0 0.0 3.8 26.3 70.0 80 3.66 0.550
254 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

As seen in Table 2, the skills rated as most important by Turkish academi-

cians are, respectively, deductive analysis (Mean = 3.78, SD = 0.449), critical
thinking (Mean = 3.76, SD = 0.428) and unstructured problem solving (Mean =
3.69, SD = 0.518). The skills rated as least important by Turkish academicians
are, respectively, oral communication (Mean = 3.31, SD = 0.836), investigative
flexibility (Mean = 3.44, SD = 0.709) and analytical proficiency (Mean = 3.50,
SD = 0.694). The findings of this study are similar to the results of Digabriele’s
(2008, p. 336) study, which indicated that the skills rated as most important by
academicians were, respectively, critical thinking, deductive analysis and unstruc-
tured problem solving. Digabriele’s (2008, p. 336) study also showed that oral
communication was the skill rated third as least important by academicians. This
study found that oral communication was the skill rated first as least important
by academicians. In the study of Davis et al. (2009, p. 12), critical/strategic thinker
was the core skill ranked first as most chosen by academicians. In the study of
Salleh and Ab Aziz (2014, p. 367), critical/strategic thinker was the basic skill
rated third as the most important by academicians. According to the findings
of this study and studies of Digabriele (2008), Davis et al. (2009), Salleh and
Ab Aziz (2014), it can be noted that academicians rate critical thinking as one
of most important skill required by forensic accountant, although Astutie and
Utami’s (2013, p. 127) study found that critical thinking was the skill competence
rated first as least important by academicians.
The only findings of significant differences in rating of the importance of the
skills by gender, title, age, experience and university department of academicians
are presented in the Tables 3–5.
As seen in Table 3, there is significant difference in rating of the importance of
critical thinking (p = 0.020), investigative flexibility (p = 0.010), analytical profi-
ciency (p = 0.026) and written communication (p = 0.020) by gender of Turkish
academicians because p-values are smaller than 0.05. Female academicians rate

Table 3. Mann–Whitney U-test Findings of Differences in Rating of

Importance of Skills by Gender.
Skill Group n Mean Rank Mann– Z p
Whitney U

Critical thinking Male 54 37.41 535.000 –2.327 0.020*

Female 26 46.92
Total 80
Investigative Male 54 36.41 481.000 –2.560 0.010*
flexibility Female 26 49.00
Total 80
Analytical Male 54 37.01 513.500 –2.229 0.026*
proficiency Female 26 47.75
Total 80
Written Male 54 36.94 510.000 –2.329 0.020*
communication Female 26 47.88
Total 80

*p < 0.05.
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 255

critical thinking (Mean Rankfemale = 46.92, Mean Rankmale = 37.41), investigative

flexibility (Mean Rankfemale = 49.00, Mean Rankmale = 36.41), analytical profi-
ciency (Mean Rankfemale = 47.75, Mean Rankmale = 37.01) and written communi-
cation (Mean Rankfemale = 47.88, Mean Rankmale = 36.94) as more important than
male academicians.
There is not any significant difference in rating of the importance of deductive
analysis (p = 0.430), unstructured problem solving (p = 0.735), oral communica-
tion (p = 0.125), specific legal knowledge (p = 0.376) and composure (p = 0.167)
by gender of Turkish academicians because p-values are larger than 0.05.
As seen in Table 4, there is significant difference in rating of the importance
of deductive analysis (p = 0.001), unstructured problem solving (p = 0.010) and
composure (p = 0.007) by experience year as academician because p-values are
smaller than 0.05. The Mann–Whitney U test is used to determine which two
groups are different. The only findings of significant differences are presented in
Table 5.
As seen in Table 5, there is significant difference between ‘5 years or less’
and ‘6–10 years’ (p = 0.001), ‘5 years or less’ and ‘11–15 years’ (p = 0.001),
‘5 years or less’ and ‘16–20 years’ (p = 0.009), and ‘11–15 years’ and ‘20 years
or more’ (p = 0.033) in rating of importance of deductive analysis by experi-
ence year. Academicians with 5 years or less of experience rate deductive anal-
ysis as less important than academicians with 6–10 years of experience (Mean
Rank5 years or less = 12.09, Mean Rank6–10 years = 21.92), academicians with 11–15
years of experience (Mean Rank5 years or less = 9.73, Mean Rank11–15 years = 18.22) and

Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis Test Findings of Differences in Rating of Importance

of Skills by Experience Year as Academician.
Skill Group n Mean Rank df χ2 p

Deductive 5 years or less 11 23.09 4 18.966 0.001*

analysis 6–10 years 26 44.44
11–15 years 18 46.81
16–20 years 11 45.41
20 years or more 14 34.89
Total 80
Unstructured 5 years or less 11 25.09 4 13.193 0.010*
problem 6–10 years 26 47.50
solving 11–15 years 18 43.33
16–20 years 11 41.36
20 years or more 14 35.29
Total 80
Composure 5 years or less 11 38.50 4 14.041 0.007*
6–10 years 26 46.58
11–15 years 18 41.14
16–20 years 11 22.32
20 years or more 14 44.25
Total 80

*p < 0.05.
256 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Table 5. Mann–Whitney U Test Findings of Differences between Two Groups

in Rating of Importance of Skills by Experience Year as Academician.
Skill Group n Mean Rank Mann– Z p
Whitney U

Deductive 5 years or less 11 12.09 67.000 −3.267 0.001*

analysis 6–10 years 26 21.92
Total 37
Deductive 5 years or less 11 9.73 41.000 −3.346 0.001*
analysis 11–15 years 18 18.22
Total 29
Deductive 5 years or less 11 8.45 27.000 −2.608 0.009*
analysis 16–20 years 11 14.55
Total 22
Deductive 11–15 years 18 18.61 88.000 −2.134 0.033*
analysis 20 years or more 14 13.79
Total 32
Unstructured 5 years or less 11 11.95 65.500 −3.320 0.001*
problem solving 6–10 years 26 21.98
Total 37
Unstructured 5 years or less 11 10.91 54.000 −2.365 0.018*
problem solving 11–15 years 18 17.50
Total 29
Unstructured 6–10 years 26 22.69 125.000 −2.234 0.025*
problem solving 20 years or more 14 16.43
Total 40
Composure 6–10 years 26 22.31 57.000 −3.486 0.000*
16–20 years 11 11.18
Total 37
Composure 11–15 years 18 17.53 53.500 −2.300 0.021*
16–20 years 11 10.86
Total 29
Composure 16–20 years 11 9.14 34.500 −2.637 0.008*
20 years or more 14 16.04
Total 25

*p < 0.05.

academicians with 16–20 years (Mean Rank5 years or less= 8.45, Mean Rank16–20 years =
14.55). Academicians with 11–15 years of experience rate deductive analysis as
more important than academicians with 20 years or more of experience (Mean
Rank11–15 years = 18.61, Mean Rank20 years or more = 13.79).
As seen in Table 5, there is significant difference between ‘5 years or less’ and
‘6–10 years’ (p = 0.001), ‘5 years or less’ and ‘11–15 years’ (p = 0.018), and ‘6–10
years’ and ‘20 years or more’ (p = 0.025) in rating of importance of unstructured
problem solving by experience year. Academicians with 5 years or less of experi-
ence rate unstructured problem solving as less important than academicians with
6–10 years of experience (Mean Rank5 years or less = 11.95, Mean Rank6–10 years =
21.98) and academicians with 11–15 years of experience (Mean Rank5 years or less =
10.91, Mean Rank11–15 years = 17.50). Academicians with 6–10 years of experience
rate unstructured problem solving as more important than academicians with
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 257

20 years or more of experience (Mean Rank6–10 years = 22.69, Mean Rank20 years or more
= 16.43).
As seen in Table 5, there is significant difference between ‘6–10 years’ and
‘16–20 years’ (p = 0.000), ‘11–15 years’ and ‘16–20 years’ (p = 0.021), and ‘16–20
years’ and ‘20 years or more’ (p = 0.008) in rating of importance of composure
by experience year. Academicians with 16–20 years of experience rate compo-
sure as less important than academicians with 6–10 years of experience (Mean
Rank16–20 years = 11.18, Mean Rank6–10 years = 22.31), academicians with 11–15 years
of experience (Mean Rank16–20 years = 10.86, Mean Rank11–15 years = 17.53) and acad-
emicians with 20 years or more of experience (Mean Rank16–20 years = 9.14, Mean
Rank20 years or more = 16.04).
There is not any significant difference in rating of the importance of critical
thinking (p = 0.294), investigative flexibility (p = 0.554), analytical proficiency
(p = 0.104), oral communication (p = 0.098), written communication (p = 0.983)
and specific legal knowledge (p = 0.399) by experience year as academician.
There is not any significant difference in rating of the importance of deductive
analysis (p = 0.524), critical thinking (p = 0.279), unstructured problem solving
(p = 0.398), investigative flexibility (p = 0.631), analytical proficiency (p = 0.801),
oral communication (p = 0.322), written communication (p = 0.665), specific
legal knowledge (p = 0.054) and composure (p = 0.250) by age.
There is not any significant difference in rating of the importance of deductive
analysis (p = 0.404), critical thinking (p = 0.215), unstructured problem solving
(p = 0.248), investigative flexibility (p = 0.462), analytical proficiency (p = 0.892),
oral communication (p = 0.868), written communication (p = 0.975), specific
legal knowledge (p = 0.429) and composure (p = 0.818) by title.
There is not any significant difference in rating of the importance of deductive
analysis (p = 0.251), critical thinking (p = 0.480), unstructured problem solving
(p = 0.634), investigative flexibility (p = 0.761), analytical proficiency (p = 0.654),
oral communication (p = 0.146), written communication (p = 0.229), specific
legal knowledge (p = 0.585) and composure (p = 0.358) by university department.

CONCLUSION
In the studies related to forensic accounting in recent years in Turkey, the aware-
ness and opinions of the accounting professionals and students related to foren-
sic accounting (Çetinoğlu & Bakar, 2017; Dağdeviren & Mirza, 2017; Karslıoğlu
& Karavardar, 2019; Kıllı & Çeviren, 2017) have been examined more. In this
study, the opinions of Turkish accounting academicians about skills of forensic
accountant are examined. This study also examines whether there is any signifi-
cant difference in opinions of Turkish accounting academicians by their gender,
title, age, experience and university department.
According to the findings, three skills rated as most important by Turkish
academicians are, respectively, deductive analysis, critical thinking and unstruc-
tured problem solving. The results of Digabriele’s (2008, p. 336) study, which indi-
cated that the skills rated as most important by academicians were, respectively,
258 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

critical thinking, deductive analysis and unstructured problem solving, are simi-
lar to these findings. In the study of Davis et al. (2009, p.12), critical/strategic
thinker was the core skill ranked first as most chosen by academicians. In the
study of Salleh and Ab Aziz (2014, p. 367), critical/strategic thinker was the basic
skill rated third as most important by academicians. According to the findings
of this study and studies of Digabriele (2008), Davis et al. (2009), Salleh and
Ab Aziz (2014), it can be noted that academicians rate critical thinking as one
of most important skill required by forensic accountant, although Astutie and
Utami’s (2013, p. 127) study found that critical thinking was the skill competence
rated first as least important by academicians.
The skill rated first as least important by Turkish academicians is oral com-
munication. This may be due to the fact that Turkish academicians are not suffi-
ciently aware of the fact that forensic accountants have a role of expert testimony,
which can require especially oral communication skill.
Critical thinking, investigative flexibility, analytical proficiency and written
communication are rated by female Turkish academicians as more important
than male Turkish academicians. In general, it can be said that Turkish academi-
cians with 5 years or less of experience rate deductive analysis as less important.
In general, it can be said that Turkish academicians with 16–20 years of experi-
ence rate composure as less important.

NOTE
1. Because data do not show a normal distribution according to the findings of Kolmog-
orov-Smirnov test (see Appendix, p values < 0.05) and values of skewness and kurtosis are
not within the acceptable range (see Appendix), for example, between –2 and +2 (Civelek,
2018, p. 22), non-parametric tests are used.

REFERENCES
Astutie, Y. P., & Utami, Y. (2013). Characteristics and relevant skills of the forensic accountant an
empirical study on Indonesia. 3rd Annual International Conference On Accounting and Finance
(AF 2013), (pp. 122–129). Bangkok.
Bhasin, M. (2007). Forensic accounting: A new paradigm for niche consulting. The Chartered
Accountant, 55(7), 1000–1010.
Bhasin, M. (2013). Survey of skills required by the forensic accountants: Evidence from a developing
country. International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies, 4(2), 54–86.
Çetinoğlu, T., & Bakar, Ö. (2017). Türkiye’de adli muhasebe eğitiminin gerekliliği: Dumlupınar üniver-
sitesi uygulamali bilimler yüksekokulu muhasebe bölümü öğrencilerinin farkindaliklari üzerine
bir araştirma. ASOS JOURNAL The Journal of Academic Social Science, (58), 333–349.
Civelek, M. E. (2018). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi metodolojisi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım
A.Ş.
Crain, M. A., Hopwood, W. S., Pacini, C., & Young, G. R. (2015). Essentials of forensic accounting.
New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc.
Crumbley, D. L. (1990). Forensic accountants appearing in the literature. Retrieved from http://www.bus.
lsu.edu/accounting/faculty/lcrumbley/forensic.html. Accessed on March 11, 2019.
Dağdeviren, İ. E., & Mirza, Ş. (2017). Muhasebe meslek mensuplarinin adli muhasebeye ilişkin
görüşlerinin belirlenmesine yönelik ege bölgesinde bir araştirma. Muhasebe ve Vergi
Uygulamaları Dergisi, 10(2), 209–233.
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 259

Davis, C., Farrell, R., & Ogilby, S. (2009). Characteristics and skills of the forensic account-
ant. AICPA FVS Section. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suzanne_
Ogilby/publication/267720824_Characteristics_and_Skills_of_the_Forensic_Accountant/
links/5583180c08ae8bf4ba6f8934.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2019.
Desai, A. R. (2018). Forensic accounting. Solapur: Laxmi Book Publication.
Digabriele, J. A. (2008). An empirical investigation of the relevant skills of forensic accountants.
Journal of Education for Business, 83(6), 331–338.
Eiya, O., & Otalor, J. I. (2013). Forensic accounting as a tool for fighting financial crime in Nigeria. Research
Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(6), 18–25. https://akademik.yok.gov.tr/AkademikArama/
view/searchResultviewListAuthorAndScFields.jsp. Accessed on March 15–16, 2019.
Karacan, S. (2012). Hukuk ile muhasebenin kesişme noktasi: Adli muhasebe. Uluslararası İktisadi ve
İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (8), 105–128.
Karslıoğlu, İ., & Karavardar, A. (2019). Adli muhasebe mesleğinin muhasebe meslek mensuplari
arasinda farkindaliği: Trabzon SMMMO üyelerine yönelik bir araştirma. Muhasebe ve
Denetime Bakış, (56), 141–164.
Kass-Shraibman, F., & Sampath, V. S. (2011). Forensic accounting for dummies. Indianapolis: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kıllı, M., & Çeviren, S. M. (2017). Muhasebe meslek mensuplarinin adli muhasebe farkindaliklari:
Mersin ilinde bir araştirma. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 19(1), 87–108.
Kreuter, E. (2017). Forensic accounting a value-adding skill for the CPA. The CPA Journal, 6–8.
McMullen, D. A., & Sanchez, M. H. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the necessary skills, educa-
tion requirements, and training requirements for forensic accountants. Journal of Forensic &
Investigative Accounting, 2(2), 30–48.
Moore, F. H., & Martin, S. (2017). The forensic accountant in practice. In B.-L. Chew (Ed.), Forensic
accounting and finance principles and practice (pp. 1–17). Great Britain and the United States:
Kogan Page Limited.
Okoye, E. I., & Akamobi, N. L. (2009). The role of forensic accounting in fraud investigation and litiga-
tion support. The Nigerian Academic Forum, 17(1), 39–44.
Pazarçeviren, S. Y. (2005). Adli muhasebecilik mesleği. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 1–19.
Renzhou, D. (2011). Research on legal procedural functions of forensic accounting. Energy Procedia,
5, 2147–2151.
Rufus, R. J. (2018). The 3 W’s of engaging a forensic accountant: Why, when, and who. American
Journal of Family Law, 32(3), 108–114.
Salleh, K., & Ab Aziz, R. (2014). Traits, skills and ethical values of public sector forensic accountants:
An empirical investigation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 145, 361–370.
Silverstone, H., Sheetz, M., Pedneault, S., & Rudewicz, F. (2012). Forensic accounting and fraud investi-
gation for non-experts (3rd Ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Singleton, T. W., & Singleton, A. J. (2010). Fraud auditing and forensic accounting (4th Ed.). Hoboken:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
260 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Findings of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Skewness–Kurtosis for

Skills by Group Gender.
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis

Deductive analysis Male 0.471 54 0.000 −1.248 −0.462

Female 0.498 26 0.000 −2.676 7.053
Critical thinking Male 0.434 54 0.000 −0.820 −1.379
Female 0.535 26 0.000 −3.373 10.156
Unstructured Male 0.432 54 0.000 −1.418 1.150
problem solving Female 0.455 26 0.000 −1.105 −0.850
Investigative Male 0.265 54 0.000 −0.900 1.356
flexibility Female 0.448 26 0.000 −2.461 6.185
Analytical Male 0.296 54 0.000 −1.358 2.310
proficiency Female 0.462 26 0.000 −1.925 3.200
Oral communication Male 0.275 54 0.000 −0.908 −0.008
Female 0.378 26 0.000 −1.114 0.264
Written Male 0.323 54 0.000 −1.767 4.492
communication Female 0.492 26 0.000 −1.659 0.807
Specific legal Male 0.325 54 0.000 −2.221 6.846
knowledge Female 0.419 26 0.000 −1.474 1.190
Composure Male 0.403 54 0.000 −1.115 0.309
Female 0.481 26 0.000 −2.260 4.782

Appendix 2. Findings of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Skewness–Kurtosis for

Skills by Group Age.
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis

Deductive 30 years old or less 0.367 5 0.026 −0.609 −3.333

analysis 31–40 years old 0.487 43 0.000 −2.193 4.402
41–50 years old 0.495 27 0.000 −1.718 1.021
51 years old or more 0.367 5 0.026 −0.609 −3.333
Critical 30 years old or less 0.473 5 0.001 −2.236 5.000
thinking 31–40 years old 0.485 43 0.000 −1.481 0.202
41–50 years old 0.478 27 0.000 −1.416 0.000
51 years old or more 0.367 5 0.026 0.609 −3.333
Unstructured 30 years old or less 0.473 5 0.001 −2.236 5.000
problem 31–40 years old 0.462 43 0.000 −1.884 2.799
solving 41–50 years old 0.423 27 0.000 −0.749 −1.560
51 years old or more 0.367 5 0.026 0.609 −3.333
Investigative 30 years old or less 0.473 5 0.001 −2.236 5.000
flexibility 31–40 years old 0.328 43 0.000 −1.410 1.667
41–50 years old 0.314 27 0.000 −0.416 −0.720
51 years old or more 0.367 5 0.026 0.609 −3.333
Analytical 30 years old or less 0.367 5 0.026 −0.609 −3.333
proficiency 31–40 years old 0.381 43 0.000 −1.809 3.031
41–50 years old 0.346 27 0.000 0.079 −2.160
51 years old or more 0.349 5 0.046 −1.258 0.312
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 261

Appendix 2. (Continued)
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis
Oral 30 years old or less 0.473 5 0.001 −2.236 5.000
communication 31–40 years old 0.291 43 0.000 −0.983 0.198
41–50 years old 0.329 27 0.000 −1.246 0.990
51 years old or more 0.300 5 0.161 0.000 2.000
Written 30 years old or less 0.367 5 0.026 −0.609 −3.333
communication 31–40 years old 0.411 43 0.000 −1.341 0.617
41–50 years old 0.344 27 0.000 −2.913 11.062
51 years old or more 0.231 5 0.200 −0.512 −0.612
Specific legal 30 years old or less 0.473 5 0.001 −2.236 5.000
knowledge 31–40 years old 0.452 43 0.000 −1.021 −1.006
41–50 years old 0.276 27 0.000 −1.917 5.491
51 years old or more 0.231 5 0.200 −0.512 −0.612
Composure 30 years old or less Omitted Omitted Omitted
31–40 years old 0.443 43 0.000 –1.434 1.191
41–50 years old 0.366 27 0.000 –1.012 0.069
51 years old or more 0.473 5 0.001 –2.236 5.000

Appendix 3. Findings of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Skewness–Kurtosis for

Skills by Group Experience as Academician.
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis

Deductive analysis 5 years or less 0.300 11 0.007 −0.291 −0.208

6–10 years 0.523 26 0.000 −2.558 4.915
11–15 years 0.538 18 0.000 −4.243 18.000
16–20 years 0.528 11 0.000 −3.317 11.000
20 years or more 0.407 14 0.000 −0.670 −1.838
Critical thinking 5 years or less 0.353 11 0.000 −0.213 −2.444
6–10 years 0.492 26 0.000 −1.659 0.807
11–15 years 0.523 18 0.000 −2.706 5.977
16–20 years 0.448 11 0.000 −1.189 −0.764
20 years or more 0.443 14 0.000 −1.067 −1.034
Unstructured 5 years or less 0.232 11 0.100 −0.329 −0.878
problem solving 6–10 years 0.523 26 0.000 −2.558 4.915
11–15 years 0.476 18 0.000 −1.461 0.137
16–20 years 0.448 11 0.000 −1.189 −0.764
20 years or more 0.369 14 0.000 −0.325 −2.241
Investigative 5 years or less 0.300 11 0.007 −0.291 −0.208
flexibility 6–10 years 0.383 26 0.000 −1.607 1.645
11–15 years 0.376 18 0.000 −1.085 0.387
16–20 years 0.353 11 0.000 −0.213 −2.444
20 years or more 0.407 14 0.000 0.670 −1.838
Analytical 5 years or less 0.252 11 0.049 −1.204 1.136
proficiency 6–10 years 0.360 26 0.000 −1.766 3.503
11–15 years 0.501 18 0.000 −1.956 2.040
16–20 years 0.353 11 0.000 0.213 −2.444
20 years or more 0.285 14 0.003 −0.433 −0.394
262 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Appendix 3. (Continued)
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis
Oral communication 5 years or less 0.277 11 0.018 −0.574 −0.967
6–10 years 0.354 26 0.000 −1.699 2.367
11–15 years 0.308 18 0.000 −0.685 −0.867
16–20 years 0.255 11 0.044 −0.344 −0.054
20 years or more 0.389 14 0.000 −1.303 0.951
Written 5 years or less 0.383 11 0.000 −1.153 −0.254
communication 6–10 years 0.398 26 0.000 −1.286 0.669
11–15 years 0.361 18 0.000 −2.907 9.835
16–20 years 0.401 11 0.000 −0.661 −1.964
20 years or more 0.350 14 0.000 −0.978 0.176
Specific legal 5 years or less 0.310 11 0.004 −1.374 1.315
knowledge 6–10 years 0.436 26 0.000 −0.885 −1.325
11–15 years 0.397 18 0.000 −3.095 10.784
16–20 years 0.282 11 0.015 −0.593 −0.293
20 years or more 0.312 14 0.001 −0.692 −0.252
Composure 5 years or less 0.401 11 0.000 −0.661 −1.964
6–10 years 0.508 26 0.000 −2.038 2.328
11–15 years 0.435 18 0.000 −1.683 2.219
16–20 years 0.279 11 0.017 −0.123 −0.453
20 years or more 0.478 14 0.000 −1.566 0.501

Appendix 4. Findings of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Skewness–Kurtosis for

Skills by Group Title.
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis

Deductive Professor 0.417 12 0.000 −0.812 −1.650

analysis Associate Professor 0.492 6 0.000 −2.449 6.000
Assistant Professor 0.522 33 0.000 −2.433 4.170
Lecturer 0.457 21 0.000 −1.920 3.182
Research Assistant 0.391 8 0.001 −0.644 −2.240
Critical Professor 0.460 12 0.000 −1.327 −0.326
thinking Associate Professor 0.492 6 0.000 −2.449 6.000
Assistant Professor 0.522 33 0.000 −2.433 4.170
Lecturer 0.397 21 0.000 −0.529 −1.913
Research Assistant 0.391 8 0.001 −0.644 −2.240
Unstructured Professor 0.374 12 0.000 −0.388 −2.263
problem solving Associate Professor 0.407 6 0.002 −0.968 −1.875
Assistant Professor 0.510 33 0.000 −2.038 2.287
Lecturer 0.377 21 0.000 −1.150 0.260
Research Assistant 0.391 8 0.001 −0.644 −2.240
Investigative Professor 0.374 12 0.000 0.388 −2.263
flexibility Associate Professor 0.492 6 0.000 −2.449 6.000
Assistant Professor 0.341 33 0.000 −1.467 2.233
Lecturer 0.262 21 0.001 −1.265 2.297
Research Assistant 0.371 8 0.002 −1.323 0.875
Views of Turkish Accounting Academics 263

Appendix 4. (Continued)
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis
Analytical Professor 0.331 12 0.001 0.000 −2.444
proficiency Associate Professor 0.407 6 0.002 −0.968 −1.875
Assistant Professor 0.392 33 0.000 −1.169 0.442
Lecturer 0.321 21 0.000 −1.737 2.713
Research Assistant 0.300 8 0.033 −0.824 −0.152
Oral Professor 0.354 12 0.000 −1.068 0.352
communication Associate Professor 0.333 6 0.036 −1.369 2.500
Assistant Professor 0.312 33 0.000 −0.879 −0.277
Lecturer 0.310 21 0.000 −1.087 0.403
Research Assistant 0.325 8 0.013 0.000 −2.800
Written Professor 0.354 12 0.000 −1.068 0.352
communication Associate Professor 0.407 6 0.002 −0.968 −1.875
Assistant Professor 0.374 33 0.000 −2.747 9.679
Lecturer 0.377 21 0.000 −1.092 −0.197
Research Assistant 0.391 8 0.001 −0.644 −2.240
Specific legal Professor 0.309 12 0.002 −0.735 −0.190
knowledge Associate Professor 0.492 6 0.000 −2.449 6.000
Assistant Professor 0.304 33 0.000 −2.128 6.376
Lecturer 0.446 21 0.000 −1.023 −1.064
Research Assistant 0.347 8 0.005 −1.960 3.937
Composure Professor 0.417 12 0.000 −0.812 −1.650
Associate Professor 0.319 6 0.056 0.000 −3.333
Assistant Professor 0.455 33 0.000 −1.841 2.540
Lecturer 0.408 21 0.000 −1.319 0.989
Research Assistant 0.455 8 0.000 −1.440 0.000

Appendix 5. Findings of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Skewness–Kurtosis for

Skills by Group University Department.
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis

Deductive Faculty 0.474 47 0.000 −1.298 −0.331

analysis College 0.307 4 . 0.000 −6.000
Vocational School 0.506 29 0.000 −2.869 8.242
Critical Faculty 0.474 47 0.000 −1.298 −0.331
thinking College Omitted Omitted
Vocational School 0.452 29 0.000 −1.059 −0.950
Unstructured Faculty 0.442 47 0.000 −0.913 −1.220
problem solving College 0.307 4 . 0.000 −6.000
Vocational School 0.455 29 0.000 −1.853 2.524
Investigative Faculty 0.325 47 0.000 −0.652 −0.472
flexibility College 0.260 4 . −1.414 1.500
Vocational School 0.345 29 0.000 −1.656 3.310
Analytical Faculty 0.352 47 0.000 −0.723 −0.416
proficiency College 0.283 4 . −0.855 −1.289
Vocational School 0.375 29 0.000 −2.079 4.327
264 SÜLEYMAN UYAR AND KÜRŞAD ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Appendix 5. (Continued)
Skill Group Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis
Oral Faculty 0.297 47 0.000 −0.982 0.566
communication College Omitted Omitted
Vocational School 0.287 29 0.000 −0.879 −0.274
Written Faculty 0.328 47 0.000 −2.221 7.512
communication College Omitted Omitted
Vocational School 0.418 29 0.000 −1.421 0.793
Specific legal Faculty 0.324 47 0.000 −2.061 5.394
knowledge College 0.441 4 . −2.000 4.000
Vocational School 0.406 29 0.000 −1.164 0.492
Composure Faculty 0.434 47 0.000 –1.291 0.701
College Omitted Omitted
Vocational School 0.400 29 0.000 –1.279 0.686