Table 2 Comparison of methodological...

Table 2

Comparison of methodological components in related studies to this study's research design

Study	Domain	S1 – Grounded on rating agencies methodologies	S2a – Dimensions derived from literature	S2b – Dimensions derived from international organisations' guidelines	S3 – Model (output)	Methodological alignment and divergence relative to this study
Coy and Dixon (2004)	✕Public universities (NZ) – accountability reporting	✕ Practice-based: existing reporting practices and regulatory requirements	✔ Substantial review on public accountability and disclosure	✕ National reporting guidance/statutory requirements as reference	✔ Public Accountability Index (parametric disclosure index)	✔ S2a + S3
Coy and Dixon (2004)	✕Public universities (NZ) – accountability reporting				✔ Public Accountability Index (parametric disclosure index)	✕ No S1; No S2b; Non-LG domain
Zafra-Gómez et al. (2008)	✔ LGs (Spain) – financial condition	✕ Practice-oriented frameworks as starting point	✔ Reviews concepts of financial condition and fiscal stress	△ Aligns with CICA/GASB-type guidance on financial condition	✔ Multi-dimensional financial condition model	✔ S2a + Partial S2b + S3
Zafra-Gómez et al. (2008)	✔ LGs (Spain) – financial condition	✕ Practice-oriented frameworks as starting point	✔ Reviews concepts of financial condition and fiscal stress		✔ Multi-dimensional financial condition model	✕ No S1
Hooks et al. (2012)	✔ Local authorities (Malaysia) – performance reporting	✕ Practice-based, referring to rating of financial management by the Auditor General and ratings derived from reports by the President/Treasury	✔ Review on accountability and performance reporting	△ National codes of practice and best-practice guidelines	✔ Best-practice performance reporting index	✔ S2a + Partial S2b + S3
Hooks et al. (2012)	✔ Local authorities (Malaysia) – performance reporting		✔ Review on accountability and performance reporting	△ National codes of practice and best-practice guidelines	✔ Best-practice performance reporting index	✕ No S1; Partial domain (performance reporting of LGs)
Cabaleiro et al. (2012)	✔ LGs (Spain) – municipal financial health	△ Fitch Local and Regional Governments methodology as conceptual base	✔ Draws on literature on municipal financial health and related indicators	△ Anchored to CICA/GASB frameworks	✔ Standardized Financial Health Index	✔ Partial S1 + S2a + Partial S2b + S3 & domain
Cabaleiro et al. (2012)	✔ LGs (Spain) – municipal financial health			△ Anchored to CICA/GASB frameworks	✔ Standardized Financial Health Index	✕ Rating agencies as a conceptual base
Lara-Rubio et al. (2017)	✔ LGs (Spain) – credit risk	✔ S&P & Moody's classifications to guide variable selection	✔ Builds on literature on indebtedness, default and credit risk	△ Contextual references to EU environment, but not structured standards mapping	✔ Statistical model of default probability	✔ S1 + S2a + S3 and domain
Galane et al. (2025)	✕State-owned enterprises (South Africa) – compliance/Public Financial Management	✕ Grounded in existing frameworks and practice on performance/governance	✔ Systematic and integrative review of frameworks	✔ Multiple governance/performance frameworks and standards	✔ Compliance index	✔ S2a + S2b + S3
Galane et al. (2025)			✔ Systematic and integrative review of frameworks	✔ Multiple governance/performance frameworks and standards	✔ Compliance index	✕ No S1; Non-LG domain
Arianpoor and Borhani (2025)	✕Corporate/private-sector accounting and audit	✕ No	✔ Meta-synthesis of prior studies	✔ International financial reporting standards	✔ Interaction framework of Blockchain, audit and international reporting standards	✔ S2a + S2b + S3
Arianpoor and Borhani (2025)	✕Corporate/private-sector accounting and audit	✕ No	✔ Meta-synthesis of prior studies	✔ International financial reporting standards		✕ No S1; Non-LG domain

Study	Domain	S1 – Grounded on rating agencies methodologies	S2a – Dimensions derived from literature	S2b – Dimensions derived from international organisations' guidelines	S3 – Model (output)	Methodological alignment and divergence relative to this study
Coy and Dixon (2004)	✕Public universities (NZ) – accountability reporting	✕ Practice-based: existing reporting practices and regulatory requirements	✔ Substantial review on public accountability and disclosure	✕ National reporting guidance/statutory requirements as reference	✔ Public Accountability Index (parametric disclosure index)	✔ S2a + S3
Coy and Dixon (2004)	✕Public universities (NZ) – accountability reporting				✔ Public Accountability Index (parametric disclosure index)	✕ No S1; No S2b; Non-LG domain
Zafra-Gómez et al. (2008)	✔ LGs (Spain) – financial condition	✕ Practice-oriented frameworks as starting point	✔ Reviews concepts of financial condition and fiscal stress	△ Aligns with CICA/GASB-type guidance on financial condition	✔ Multi-dimensional financial condition model	✔ S2a + Partial S2b + S3
Zafra-Gómez et al. (2008)	✔ LGs (Spain) – financial condition	✕ Practice-oriented frameworks as starting point	✔ Reviews concepts of financial condition and fiscal stress		✔ Multi-dimensional financial condition model	✕ No S1
Hooks et al. (2012)	✔ Local authorities (Malaysia) – performance reporting	✕ Practice-based, referring to rating of financial management by the Auditor General and ratings derived from reports by the President/Treasury	✔ Review on accountability and performance reporting	△ National codes of practice and best-practice guidelines	✔ Best-practice performance reporting index	✔ S2a + Partial S2b + S3
Hooks et al. (2012)	✔ Local authorities (Malaysia) – performance reporting		✔ Review on accountability and performance reporting	△ National codes of practice and best-practice guidelines	✔ Best-practice performance reporting index	✕ No S1; Partial domain (performance reporting of LGs)
Cabaleiro et al. (2012)	✔ LGs (Spain) – municipal financial health	△ Fitch Local and Regional Governments methodology as conceptual base	✔ Draws on literature on municipal financial health and related indicators	△ Anchored to CICA/GASB frameworks	✔ Standardized Financial Health Index	✔ Partial S1 + S2a + Partial S2b + S3 & domain
Cabaleiro et al. (2012)	✔ LGs (Spain) – municipal financial health			△ Anchored to CICA/GASB frameworks	✔ Standardized Financial Health Index	✕ Rating agencies as a conceptual base
Lara-Rubio et al. (2017)	✔ LGs (Spain) – credit risk	✔ S&P & Moody's classifications to guide variable selection	✔ Builds on literature on indebtedness, default and credit risk	△ Contextual references to EU environment, but not structured standards mapping	✔ Statistical model of default probability	✔ S1 + S2a + S3 and domain
Galane et al. (2025)	✕State-owned enterprises (South Africa) – compliance/Public Financial Management	✕ Grounded in existing frameworks and practice on performance/governance	✔ Systematic and integrative review of frameworks	✔ Multiple governance/performance frameworks and standards	✔ Compliance index	✔ S2a + S2b + S3
Galane et al. (2025)			✔ Systematic and integrative review of frameworks	✔ Multiple governance/performance frameworks and standards	✔ Compliance index	✕ No S1; Non-LG domain
Arianpoor and Borhani (2025)	✕Corporate/private-sector accounting and audit	✕ No	✔ Meta-synthesis of prior studies	✔ International financial reporting standards	✔ Interaction framework of Blockchain, audit and international reporting standards	✔ S2a + S2b + S3
Arianpoor and Borhani (2025)	✕Corporate/private-sector accounting and audit	✕ No	✔ Meta-synthesis of prior studies	✔ International financial reporting standards		✕ No S1; Non-LG domain

Note(s)

✔ Explicitly used/Fully aligned: The study explicitly incorporates this component as defined in this research design

✕Not used/Not applicable: The study does not employ this component, or it falls outside the scope adopted in our research

△ Indirect or partial use: The component is drawn on only in part, indirectly, or at a conceptual/background level, but is not fully or systematically operationalised in the study

Source(s): Authors' own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable