Professional accounting body affiliation in a developing country: the case of membership attraction in Vietnam

Figures & data

Figure 1. The developed TPB model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005).

Figure 2. Application of the TPB model (Ajzen, 1991) to the decision to affiliate with a professional accounting body.

Table 1. Variables and variable measures.

Variables (from TPB)	Variable measures	Instrument source	Sample statements
Attitude	Benefits and costs of affiliating with an accounting professional body	Taylor and Todd (1995a, 1995b)	‘affiliating with this professional body will enhance my career and networking opportunities’ ‘Affiliating with this professional accounting body will enhance my professional status’
Subjective norm	Perception of social pressure from referents to affiliate with a professional body	Armitage and Conner (2001) using multiple scale items	‘Most people who are important to me would think that I should affiliate with this professional body’
PBC	Capability to affiliate with a professional body/beliefs about ability to deal with specific inhibiting or facilitating factors	Ajzen (2002)	‘it is easy to become member of this professional body’ ‘I am more likely to affiliate with a specific professional body if my employer covers the cost of membership’
Intention	Intention of affiliating with a professional body	Davis et al. (1989), Venkatesh et al. (2003)	‘I intend to affiliate with this professional accounting body in the near future’
Behaviour	Joining a professional accounting body	Inglis et al. (2011)	Of which professional accounting body are you a member?

Table 2. Intention, attitude, subjective norm and PBC descriptive statistics – full sample.

	Overall mean (M)	Overall std. deviation	Overall number (N)
Intention	1.18	1.78	279
Attitude (ATT)	1.59	1.30	291
Subjective norm (SN)	1.59	1.46	294
PBC	1.20	1.31	297

Table 3. Regression results of intention on attitude, subjective norm, PBC – full sample.

Predictors	ATT	SN	PBC	R	R²
BI = ATT + SN + PBC	0.442***	0.115	0.034	0.383***	0.146***

***Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4. Salient beliefs outcome evaluation ranking – foundation candidates.

Salient beliefs	Mean (M)
This professional accounting body has a good reputation	6.25
Affiliating with this professional accounting body will enhance my career and networking opportunities	6.15
The CPA programme (including exam mode) is flexible	6.12
Its international recognition is high	6.09
Affiliating with this professional accounting body will enhance my professional status	6.07
Affiliating with this professional accounting body will enhance my international mobility opportunities	5.89
The professional education programmes are of high quality	5.88
The members of this professional accounting body are recognised as experts	5.71
I am more likely to affiliate with a professional accounting body if my employer covers the programme fee (professional level)	5.71
Reciprocal membership agreements with local and international professional accounting bodies are facilitated	5.70
The programme/tuition fees are high	5.69
I am more likely to affiliate with a professional accounting body if my employer covers the membership fee	5.57
The membership benefits and privileges are good	5.45
The ongoing membership fees are high	5.40
The CPA programme is difficult	5.28
Work commitments limit my ability to study	5.27
The salary of the members of the accounting body are high	5.16
the assessment fee is high	4.95
My employer would think that I should affiliate with a professional accounting body	4.95
My co-workers would think that I should affiliate with a professional accounting body	4.57
It is easy to remain a member	4.42
My friends would think that I should affiliate with a professional accounting body	4.27
My family would think that I should affiliate with a professional accounting body	4.20
Generally speaking, I want to do what my employer think I should do	4.15
It is easy to become a member	4.08
Generally speaking, I want to do what my family think I should do	3.79
Generally speaking, I want to do what my friends think I should do	3.63
Generally speaking, I want to do what my co-workers think I should do	3.56

Table 5. Factors importance – foundation candidates.

Factors	Mean (M)
Career and networking opportunities	6.30
Quality of professional education programmes	6.25
Reputation of the professional body	6.20
International recognition	6.17
Professional status	6.08
Flexibility of the programme	6.01
International mobility opportunities	5.99
Time available for study	5.97
Exam mode (computer based, multiple choice, year round exams for foundation level)	5.92
Salary of the members	5.88
Perceived expertise of the members	5.83
Continual professional development/education	5.78
Reciprocal membership agreements with international professional accounting bodies	5.77
Access to online research facilities e.g. Library, webinars	5.70
Difficulty of the CPA programme	5.58
Tuition fees	5.58
Receiving professional updates (via emails etc.) e.g. to keep abreast of change	5.55
Access to study support from Registered Tuition Providers	5.48
Employer is a Recognised Employer Partner	5.47
Access to professional indemnity insurance	5.41
Entry requirements (including practical experience)	5.40
Access to discussion groups	5.39
Employer paying programme fees (professional level)	5.33
Journals	5.27
Employer paying membership fees	5.14
Ongoing membership fees	4.97
Assessment fee	4.20

Table 6. Factors importance – students.

Factors	Mean (M)
Quality of professional education programmes	6.51
Career and networking opportunities	6.44
Reputation of the professional body	6.20
Salary of the members	6.03
International recognition	5.99
Flexibility of the programme	5.98
International mobility opportunities	5.79
Time available for study	5.78
Professional status	5.77
Continual professional development/education	5.67
Reciprocal membership agreements with international professional accounting bodies	5.65
Entry requirements (including practical experience)	5.65
Access to online research facilities e.g. Library, webinars	5.64
Difficulty of the CPA programme	5.62
Perceived expertise of the members	5.60
Exam mode (computer based, multiple choice, year round exams for foundation level)	5.58
Tuition fees	5.51
Receiving professional updates (via emails etc.) e.g. to keep abreast of change	5.51
Access to study support from Registered Tuition Providers	5.51
Employer paying programme fees (professional level)	5.47
Access to professional indemnity insurance	5.46
Access to discussion groups	5.40
Employer paying membership fees	5.24
Journals	4.90
Ongoing membership fees	4.87
Assessment fee	4.62

Table 7. Intenders/non-intenders significant differences on modal outcomes and facilitating/inhibiting factors importance.

Item	Sample group	Number (N)	Mean (M)	Std dev	t	p
Importance of Assessment fee	Intenders	184	4.32	1.564	−1.993	.047
	Non-intenders	88	4.72	1.523
Importance of reputation of the professional body	Intenders	190	6.28	0.830	2.127	.034
	Non-intenders	89	6.03	1.027
Importance of career and networking opportunities	Intenders	189	6.47	0.816	2.025	.045
	Non-intenders	89	6.21	1.060
Importance of international recognition	Intenders	190	6.17	.8687	2.395	.018
	Non-intenders	89	5.84	1.1372
Importance of professional status	Intenders	189	6.02	0.922	2.703	.007
	Non-intenders	89	5.70	0.958
Importance of international mobility opportunities	Intenders	186	6.02	0.989	2.484	.014
	Non-intenders	89	5.63	1.300
Importance of perceived expertise of the members	Intenders	187	5.86	1.033	2.865	.005
	Non-intenders	89	5.44	1.196
Importance of Continuing professional development/education	Intenders	188	5.83	0.829	2.858	.005
	Non-intenders	89	5.47	1.035
Importance of receiving magazines/Journals	Intenders	188	5.16	1.128	2.581	.012
	Non-intenders	86	4.78	1.192

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

 Google Scholar

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995a). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561–570. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/249633

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995b). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Inglis, R., Shelly, M., Morley, C., & De Lange, P. (2011). A collective, undifferentiated accounting profession: An Australian study. Accounting & Finance, 51(3), 711–731. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2011.00429.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar