XBRL_data quality

J. Account. Public Policy 29 (2010) 296–306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

J. Account. Public Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccpubpol

Does it add up? Early evidence on the data quality of XBRL filings to the SEC
Roger Debreceny a,*, Stephanie Farewell b, Maciej Piechocki c,1,
Carsten Felden d, André Gräning e a School of Accountancy, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 2404 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
¯
Department of Accounting, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA c International Accounting Standards wCommittee Foundation, UK d Technische Universität Bergakademie, Freiberg, Germany e Technical University, Dresden, Germany b a r t i c l e
Article history:

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission rolled out the first stage of a multi-year program to transition its EDGAR disclosure repository to the XBRL format. The quality of the XBRL data in the repository is vital for the success of the Commission’s interactive data program. A key aspect of the data quality of these filings is the correctness of the mathematical relationships implied by the taxonomy and implemented in the instance document. One quarter of the filings by the initial 400 large corporations in the first round of submissions had errors, with differences reported monetary facts and the sum of other monetary facts that were bound together in a computation relationship. The primary cause of these errors was inappropriate treatment in the instance documents of underlying debit/credit assumptions in the taxonomy. The results of the research have a number of implications for filers, the SEC,
XBRL US, software vendors and the global XBRL community.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In one of most significant changes in the disclosure environment in US capital markets, the SEC’s mandate requires that those corporations and mutual funds under

References: Argote, L., 1993. Group and organizational learning curves – individual, system and environmental components. British Journal of Social Psychology 32 (1), 31–51. Ashbaugh, H., Johnstone, K.M., Warfield, T.D., 1999. Corporate reporting on the Internet. Accounting Horizons 13 (3), 241–257. Bonson, E., Cortijo, V., Escobar, T., Flores, F., 2009. Implementing XBRL successfully by mandate and voluntarily. Online 33 (1), 37–40. Boritz, J.E., No, W.G., 2004. Assurance reporting for XML-based information services: XARL (extensible assurance reporting language) Boritz, J.E., No, W.G., 2005. Security in XML-based financial reporting services on the Internet. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24 (1), 11–35. Boritz, J.E., No, W.G., 2008. SEC’s XBRL voluntary program on EDGAR: the case for quality assurance. Current Issues in Auditing 2 (2), A36–A50. Boritz, J.E., No, W.G., 2009. Assurance on XBRL-related documents: the case of United Technologies Corporation. Journal of Information Systems 23 (2), 49–78. Bovee, M., Ettredge, M.L., Srivastava, R.P., Vasarhelyi, M.A., 2002. Does the year 2000 XBRL taxonomy accommodate current business financial-reporting practice? Journal of Information Systems 16 (2), 165–182. Bovee, M., Kogan, A., Srivastava, R.P., Vasarhelyi, M.A., Nelson, K.M., 2003. Financial Reporting and Auditing Agent with Net Knowledge (FRAANK) and eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) Cox, C., 2008. Opening Statement – Open Meeting on the Use of Technology to Improve Financial Reporting. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. Debreceny, R.S., Felden, C., Ochocki, B., Piechocki, M., Piechocki, M., 2009. XBRL for Interactive Data: Engineering the Information Value Chain Debreceny, R.S., Gray, G.L., Rahman, A., 2002. The determinants of internet financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 21 (4/5), 371–394. DiPiazza, S.A., McDonnell, D., Parrett, W.G., Rake, M.D., Samyn, F., Turley, J.S., 2006. Global Capital Markets and the Global Economy: A Vision From the CEOs of the International Audit Networks Divorski, S., Scheirer, M.A., 2001. Improving data quality for performance measures: results from a GAO study of verification and validation Eppler, M.J., 2001. The concept of information quality: an interdisciplinary evaluation of recent information quality frameworks. Ettredge, M., Richardson, V.J., Scholz, S., 2002. Dissemination of information for investors at corporate Web sites. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 21 (4/5), 357–369. Hannon, N., Trevithick, G., 2006. Making clean deposits. Strategic Finance 87 (8), 24–29. Hoffman, C., Watson, L., 2009. XBRL for Dummies. Wiley Publishing, Hoboken, NJ. CF, I.A.S., 2009. Due Process Handbook for XBRL Activities. International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation, London. ITGI, 2007. Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies (CobiT) 4.1. IT Governance Institute, Rolling Meadows, IL. Kelton, A.S., Yang, Y.-W., 2008. The impact of corporate governance on Internet financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27 (1), 62–87. Kernan, K., 2008. XBRL around the world. Journal of Accountancy 206 (4), 62–66. Kernan, K., 2009. XBRL – The Story of Our New Language. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY. Miller, H., 1996. The multiple dimensions of information quality. Information Systems Management 13 (2), 79–82. Morrison, J.B., 2008. Putting the learning curve in context. Journal of Business Research 61 (11), 1182–1190. Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A., Wixom, B.H., 2005. Antecedents of information and system quality: an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing Piechocki, M., Felden, C., Gräning, A., Debreceny, R., 2009. Design and standardization of XBRL solutions for governance and transparency Plumlee, R.D., Plumlee, M.A., 2008. Assurance on XBRL for financial reporting. Accounting Horizons 22 (3), 353–368. Robey, D., Boudreau, M.-C., Rose, G.M., 2000. Information technology and organizational learning: a review and assessment of research Scannapieco, M., Missier, P., Batini, C., 2005. Data quality at a glance. Datenbank/Spektrum 5 (14), 6–14. SEC, 2009a. Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations – Regulation S–T Questions and Answers of General Applicability. SEC, 2009b. EDGAR Filer Manual (Volume II) EDGAR Filing, 13th ed. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. SEC, 2009c. Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. SEC, 2009d. Notice Regarding Upcoming EDGAR Release 9.17 and XBRL Validation. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. SEC, 2009e. Staff Observations from Review of Interactive Data Financial Statements. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. Stantial, J., 2007. ROI on XBRL. Journal of Accountancy 203 (6), 32–35. Trites, G., 2002. Audit and Control Implications of XBRL. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, Toronto. Wagenhofer, A., 2003. Economic consequences of internet financial reporting. Schmalenbach Business Review 55 (4), 262–279. Williams, S.P., Scifleet, P.A., Hardy, C.A., 2006. Online business reporting: an information management perspective. International Journal of Information Management 26 (2), 91–101. XBRL International, 2003. Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) 2.1 – Recommendation. XBRL International. XBRL International, 2006. Interactive Data: The Impact on Assurance: New Challenges for The Audit Profession. Assurance Working Group of XBRL International, New York, NY.