Abstract This article presents response of the author on comments made by scholar Shu Liao on the paper "An Intra-Industry Comparison of Alternative Income Concepts and Relative Performance Evaluations" that was published in the October 1974 of the periodical "The Accounting Review." Liao examines the research methodology in three sections--statistical methods, components of income, and test of impact. First, however, it is pointed out that some of his statements might be interpreted to be full quotes of the study when, in fact, they are not. For example, in the second sentence of his note, he states the authors have concluded that each income concept could be used as a surrogate for other concepts. The statement is that, in many instances, each income concept could be used as a surrogate for the other concepts. The degree of agreement among different income concepts as a result of statistical tests is shown in each cell. He has made valuable suggestions for a number of extensions and for different approaches to studying the practical impact of alternative income concepts.
Kratchman et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: