Abstract The numerical analysis proposed serves to ascribe variations in the relative reliability of a set of measurements to measurers, rules, lack of relevance and users. The relative influence of these sources is called a bias, and the technique of analysis of variance, in part, permits the various biases of these four sources to add to a reliability measure. The analysis and commentary have regarded the influences of these sources simply as biases. Nothing pejorative is attributed to the term "bias." It simply refers to the relative influence of one source (or subset of that source) of variation. The various biases then are reordered in several ways to define and describe the interrelationships between accounting conventions such as uniformity, conservatism, relevance, objectivity and reliability. Indeed, the analysis suggests that these common accounting conventions are based on the biases proposed. Research into the relative size of such biases, using the methodology put forward, should serve to direct corrective attention to those biases which seem to be most material and which, if reduced, are most likely to improve decision making.

Abstract The foregoing exposition allows us a) to trace through the effects of transactions in and on the algebraic equation; b) to demonstrate both the correspondence of the algebraic equation with the double entry-journal entry form of recording, and the articulation of the income and balance sheet statements; and c) to elaborate the calculations of ROl and Source and Application of Funds by means of the algebraic equation. The algebraic equation is therefore an alternative and hopefully useful alternative pedagogical method.

Abstract Reviews the book "Accounting Principles: A Canadian Viewpoint," by R.M. Skinner.

Abstract Reviews the book `Art & Accounting,' by Basil S. Yamey.