Países referentes para nuestra legislación Penal

All questions require participants to rate their views using 5-point Likert type scale measures. All items, with the exception of question 12, are bilateral and rated according to the following options:

Agree strongly Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Disagree strongly

For all items, zero scores reflect the point of least bias, or greatest Neutrality, being the point at which evidence is more likely than bias to inform decisions. A score of zero therefore represents scepticism.

Items 1-10 and 13-15

A variant of the original Wrightsman (1991) scoring method was utilised in that the 7-point Likert scale was adapted to a 5-point scale to match the remainder of the instrument, but there were no further changes. This scale is bipolar, or bilateral, ranging from +2 at the Agree Stongly end to -2 at the Disagree Strongly end. Consistent with the original scale, items 2, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, and 15 are reverse-scored.

Items 11, 16 and 17

Budner’s (1962) original scoring method for the Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale was adapted, in that the direction of scoring has been reversed to integrate logically with the Trust scale. This scale is unilateral, and the adapted scores range from 0 at the Agree Stongly end to 4 at the Disagree Strongly end. The purpose of reversal was to ensure that the lowest score matches the 0 midpoint of the Wrightsman Trust Scale. This procedural intersection reflects the conceptual intersection of greatest trait and skill scepticism at the central point of the Professional Scepticism Model in section 3.6 The Professional Scepticism Model.

Item 12

Question 12 is rated according to the following options: Rarely or never

On occasion Sometimes Usually All the time

The question 12 scale is unilateral, with scores ranging from 4 at the Rarely or Never end to 0 at the All the Time end. Again, the lowest score matches the 0 midpoint of the Wrightsman (1991) Trust Scale.

4.7.1 Research-specific Sub-Scale Scores

For the purposes of exploring the separate Skill and Trait factors in this research, the relevant sub-scale items for each factor are used as separate sub-sets, as distinguished in Table 4.5.

Trait Sub-Scale

Trait scores are calculated by summing Items 1 – 12, and converting the total value’s sign to positive value by squaring the variable and then finding the square root. This is because the sub-scale analyses are specifically concerned with the existence of a Trait bias, rather than the detail of any such bias. These raw scores, are then converted to a percentage using the syntax:

Percentage = 1 - (Positive Raw Trait Score/28) * 100 where 28 is the maximum possible range of scores above 0.

After conversion, the highest possible score of 1.0 represents the most neutral Trait position, and thus the greatest propensity for scepticism.

Skill Sub-Scale

Skill scores are calculated by summing Items 13 – 17, and then converting the total value’s sign to positive, as above. These raw scores, are then converted to a percentage using the syntax:

Percentage = 1 - (Positive Raw Skill Score/14) * 100 where 14 is the maximum possible range of scores above 0.

After conversion, the highest possible score of 1.0 represents the greatest skepticism Skill.

4.7.2 Formal Scores

Subjects who complete the 17-item Scepticism instrument received two scores: A Bias Score and a Scepticism Score. These scores were intended for different purposes, and were derived from dual-purpose usage of the survey instrument items, as follows.

Bias Indicators

These scores are distinct from Scepticism scores, and are intended solely for the purpose of clarifying the polarity of any scepticism deficiencies identified in overall scepticism scores. That is, whether a bias is of a Trust nature or a Distrust nature. Bias Scores were calculated as the sum of each participant’s Wrightsman (1991) Trust Scale item scores (items 1-10 and 13-15), which sit within the possible scoring range of -26 to +26.

Whilst the numeric result is useful for exploring the continuum in this research, it is not necessary to disclose this number to test subjects. Rather, it is the positive or negative sign associated with the total bias score which is potentially useful

feedback, and which should be viewed in conjunction with the overall Scepticism score, below.

For the purposes of this research, the score is used to look for differences, in terms of means (median or rank) as well as dispersion. The sign identifies the polarity, or direction, of bias, and therefore can be useful for deciding upon relevant skill development activities for those whose Scepticism scores do not represent the desired level of scepticism. On the basis that appropriate skills may offset trait deficiencies, insights which enable matching of training to deficiencies may be more effective than generic training. For example, bias scores suggest a high level of trust in others (at the positive sign end) could result in increased audit risk or, conversely, a high level of distrust (at the negative sign end) could result in audit inefficiencies.

Scepticism Scores

Next, each subject’s Scepticism Score was calculated as the sum of all item scores. The raw total of all item scores sit within the possible scoring range of -26 to +42 before conversion.

The Raw Score is first converted to a positive value by squaring the variable and then finding the square root. This positive Total is then converted to a percentage using the following Excel syntax:

Percentage = 1 - (Positive Raw Scepticism Score/42) * 100 where 42 is the maximum possible range of scores above 0.

The highest possible scepticism score of 100% represents the highest level of Professional Scepticism, and the lowest possible score of 0% represents the greatest subjectivity.