Skill Based Accounting Assessment for Hiring & Growth

A strong accounting hire is expected to produce accurate, supportable, and timely outputs under real constraints: incomplete data, competing deadlines, stakeholder pressure, and the need for strong internal controls. This skill based assessment is designed to surface observable evidence across five domains:

1) Financial accounting & reporting judgment (GAAP/IFRS-aligned)‍

• Accrual thinking, revenue/expense recognition, capitalization vs. expense
• Adjusting entries and financial statement impact
• Technical reasoning and documentation (short memos)

2) Close execution & reconciliation capability‍

• Bank/GL reconciliations with discrepancies
• Identifying root causes (timing, missing entries, duplicate postings)
• Designing a clean close workflow and tie-outs

3) Controls, auditability & governance (COSO-style thinking)‍

• Preventive vs. detective controls
• Evidence, approvals, segregation of duties
• Control gaps, remediation proposals, and documentation practices

4) Data, spreadsheet, and systems fluency (Excel-first, ERP-aware)‍

• Error-checking and data hygiene
• Pivot-style summarization and variance analysis
• Comfort translating business events into entries and reports

5) Professional competencies: integrity, communication, and stakeholder management‍

• Clear explanations of issues and tradeoffs
• Escalation judgment and ethical decision-making
• Structured problem-solving under pressure

Industry standards and terminology used throughout

• GAAP/IFRS concepts are referenced at the principle level (recognition, measurement, presentation). Where your organization has specific policies (e.g., revenue recognition practices or capitalization thresholds), substitute them into prompts and scoring anchors.
• Internal controls are discussed using common COSO-aligned language: control environment, preventive/detective controls, reasonable assurance, and evidence.
• Structured evaluation follows best practice: standardized prompts, time boxes, scoring rubrics, and documented rationales.

Assessment methodology: The Blueprint → Evidence → Rubric framework

Many teams struggle with vague assessment design. The core build logic is: what to assess, how to assess it, and how to score it consistently. Use this repeatable framework.

Step 1: Define the role outcome (1 sentence)

Examples:

“Own month-end close for 6 entities with accurate accruals and timely reporting.”-

“Maintain reconciliations and resolve discrepancies within 5 business days.”

Step 2: Build an Assessment Blueprint (skills × tasks × evidence)

Create a simple matrix:

• ‍Skill (e.g., accrual judgment)
• ‍Task (e.g., record prepaid expense amortization)
• ‍Evidence (correct JE + explanation)
• ‍Rubric (what good looks like)

Step 3: Choose methods (optimize for realism)

Recommended for accounting:

• ‍Work sample/case (primary): high job relevance
• ‍Excel/data task (primary): reflects daily performance
• ‍Structured behavioral/situational interview (primary): judgment and communication
• ‍Knowledge check (supporting): fast coverage of must-know concepts

Step 4: Standardize administration

• Same instructions, time box, tools allowed, and evaluation criteria
• Clear candidate expectations (what you value: accuracy, assumptions, documentation)

Step 5: Score with anchored rubrics

Rubrics can reduce inconsistency and help teams document why a decision was made. Scoring anchors are provided below.

Assessment structure (recommended)

Total time: 75–120 minutes (depending on seniority)

• Section A — Work sample case (35–45 minutes | 40 points)
• Section B — Excel/data reasoning task (20–30 minutes | 25 points)
• Section C — Controls & auditability scenario (15–20 minutes | 20 points)
• Section D — Professional judgment scenario prompts (10–15 minutes | 15 points)

Optional add-on:

‍Targeted knowledge check (10–12 minutes | unscored or +10 bonus points) for high-volume roles

Sample questions & scenarios (9 total)

These are designed to be realistic and challenging. Use them as a complete assessment or as a bank to assemble role-specific versions.

1) Month-end close: adjusting entries (Work sample)

Context: You are closing December books. You find:

• Vendor invoice for $24,000 dated Dec 20 for Q1 services (Jan–Mar), posted entirely to expense in December.
• Customer payment of $18,000 received Dec 28 for services to be delivered in January, recorded as revenue in December.

Task: Propose the adjusting entries and explain the financial statement impact.

What we’re testing: accrual reasoning, deferral mechanics, communication clarity.

2) Bank reconciliation with discrepancies (Work sample)

Context: Bank statement balance: $112,450. GL cash balance: $105,730.You identify:

• Outstanding checks: $9,600
• Deposits in transit: $14,500
• Bank fee not recorded: $120
• Customer wire received but not posted in GL: $2,440

Task: Reconcile and identify required entries.

What we’re testing: reconciliation logic, JE accuracy, attention to detail.

3) Revenue recognition judgment (Technical caselet)

Context: A customer signs a $60,000 contract for a 12-month subscription starting Feb 1. They pay in full on Jan 15. The sales team asks you to “help revenue this quarter.”

Task: Describe how you would recognize revenue from Jan 15 through March 31 and how you would communicate the rationale.

What we’re testing: GAAP-aligned judgment, integrity, stakeholder management.

4) Capitalize vs. expense (Technical caselet)

Context: The company buys $8,000 of computer equipment and $6,500 of annual software licenses. Implementation services of $3,000 are invoiced separately.

Task: For each cost, state whether you would capitalize or expense (and why), and outline the follow-on accounting (depreciation/amortization where applicable).

What we’re testing: classification reasoning, policy awareness, practical follow-through.

5) Variance analysis with limited information (Excel/data reasoning)

Context: Operating expenses are up 18% MoM.You have a departmental summary showing:

• Headcount +3
• Contractor spend +$22k
• Travel +$9k
• Software +$6k

Task: Write a short analysis (5–8 bullets) identifying likely drivers, what data you’d request next, and how you’d present this to a non-finance leader.

What we’re testing: analytical thinking, prioritization, executive communication.

6) Error-finding in a journal entry set (Quality control)

Context: Review the entries below (assume all amounts are material).1) Dr Accounts Receivable 15,000 / Cr Cash 15,0002) Dr Depreciation Expense 4,000 / Cr Accumulated Depreciation 4,0003) Dr Cash 2,500 / Cr Unearned Revenue 2,500

Task: Identify which entries are wrong or suspicious and explain what you would verify.

What we’re testing: accounting sense-checking, skepticism, controls mindset.

7) Internal controls: design and remediation (Controls scenario)

Context: In AP, one person can create vendors, enter invoices, and approve payments up to $10,000. The CFO says, “We’re lean; it’s fine.”

Task: Identify risks, categorize controls you would recommend (preventive/detective), and propose a pragmatic remediation plan for a small team.

What we’re testing: COSO-style reasoning, practicality, risk-based prioritization.

8) Audit request triage (Professional judgment)

Context: An auditor requests support for 25 samples with a 48-hour deadline, but you are also closing. Your manager is out.

Task: What do you do in the next 2 hours? Provide a step-by-step plan.

What we’re testing: prioritization, communication, professionalism, risk management.

9) Ethics and pressure scenario (Scenario prompt)

Context: A senior leader asks you to “move” an expense into next month to hit targets and says, “We’ll reverse it later.”

Task: Describe how you would respond and why. Include what you would do if the pressure continues.

What we’re testing: integrity, judgment, escalation behavior.

Scoring system (structured and easy to operationalize)

Your goal is more consistent evaluation across raters using documented criteria.

Point allocation (100 points total)

• Work sample case (Q1–Q4): 40 points
• Excel/data reasoning (Q5): 25 points
• Controls & auditability (Q7): 20 points
• Professional judgment (Q8–Q9): 15 points

Rubric scale (use for each question)

Score each prompt on a 0–4 anchor and convert to points.

0 — Not demonstrated- Misunderstands the task; material errors; cannot explain reasoning.

1 — Basic / inconsistent- Partial approach; multiple errors; weak assumptions; limited clarity.

2 — Competent- Mostly correct; minor errors; reasonable explanation; identifies key risks.

3 — Strong- Correct and complete; clear logic; anticipates follow-up issues; good prioritization.

4 — Advanced- High accuracy + sound judgment; strong documentation habits; efficient, business-aligned communication; proposes practical controls and next steps.

Example: scoring anchors for select domains

Reconciliation accuracy (Q2)

4: Reconciles correctly; identifies all reconciling items; posts required JEs; flags what needs verification.- 2: Reconciles but misses one JE or misclassifies one reconciling item.- 0–1: Arithmetic or conceptual errors; cannot tie balances.

Controls scenario (Q7)- 4: Clearly explains segregation-of-duties risk; proposes layered controls (vendor setup approval, payment run review, exception reporting) appropriate for a small team.- 2: Identifies risk but suggests generic controls without implementation detail.- 0–1: Minimizes risk; proposes ineffective controls.

Result calculation

1) Score each question 0–4.2) Multiply by the question weight (pre-assigned points).3) Sum to 100.4) If you use gates, document them in advance and apply them consistently:

• Integrity gate: If Q9 scores <2, require follow-up discussion and additional review before proceeding.
• Close competence gate (for GL roles): If Q1+Q2 average <2, require additional evidence

Important: Use assessment results as structured inputs alongside role requirements, interviews, and references. Avoid using any single score as the sole decision factor.

Inter-rater reliability (practical setup)

• Two independent scorers for work sample sections.
• 15-minute calibration before scoring (review “2 vs 3” examples).
• If total scores differ by >10 points, run a short reconciliation discussion and document the rationale.

Skill level interpretations (with actionable guidance)

These tiers support hiring conversations and development planning.

0–49: Foundational gaps

What it means: Candidate shows inconsistent accrual logic, reconciliation discipline, or control thinking. Risk of errors and rework may be higher without close supervision.

Best fit: Intern/entry-level with close supervision; not recommended for close ownership.

Actionable next steps:- Build fundamentals: double-entry, accruals, reconciliation mechanics- Practice structured documentation: “assumption → entry → impact”

50–69: Emerging contributor

What it means: Can complete routine tasks with guidance; may miss edge cases or struggle with messy data.

Best fit: Staff Accountant on a stable process with strong review.

Coaching plan:- Weekly reconciliation reviews with error logs- Template-driven close checklist and tie-out discipline- Communication drills: summarizing issues in 5 bullets

70–84: Role-ready (for many staff/senior contexts)

What it means: Demonstrates competent judgment, accurate mechanics, and sound prioritization.

Best fit: Staff/Senior (depending on complexity) with ownership of reconciliations and parts of close.

Development focus:- Increase scope: more complex accruals, multi-entity close, audit support- Strengthen controls mindset: evidence quality, approvals, exception reporting

85–100: Advanced capability

What it means: Performs reliably under ambiguity; communicates clearly; anticipates control and audit needs; operates with strong ownership.

Best fit: Senior Accountant, GL/Close lead, Reporting-focused roles (with role-specific technical checks).

Acceleration plan:- Ownership of process improvements and automation- Drafting technical memos and training others- Leading cross-functional close planning and risk reviews

Benchmarks and proficiency thresholds (what “good” looks like)

Use these benchmarks to set expectations by role level. Adjust based on close complexity, regulatory environment, and systems maturity.

Suggested minimum score ranges by role (starting point)

• Entry-level/AP/AR accounting: 55–65
• Staff Accountant (GL/close support): 70+
• Senior Accountant (close owner / reviewer): 80+
• Reporting/technical accounting-heavy: 80+ plus a role-specific technical memo add-on

Time-to-complete expectations (candidate experience benchmark)

• Work sample: 35–45 minutes
• Excel/data: 20–30 minutes
• Controls + judgment: 25–35 minutes

Design note: shorter tests reduce drop-off but can reduce reliability. Keep the assessment tight, realistic, and clearly job-related.

Professional development roadmap (by result tier)

This is how people can turn assessment insight into a practical growth plan.

If you scored 0–49: Build the foundation (4–6 weeks)

Weekly plan:- 3 reconciliation drills/week (bank + AR/AP subledger tie-outs)- 2 accrual caselets/week (prepaids, accruals, deferred revenue)- 1 “explain it simply” memo/week (≤150 words)

Target outcomes:- 0 material JE errors in practice sets- Clean reconciliation format with clear reconciling items

If you scored 50–69: Become reliably accurate (6–10 weeks)

Weekly plan:- Close checklist ownership for one area (e.g., fixed assets or payroll)- Build a variance analysis template (MoM/YoY drivers + questions list)- Controls journal: for each process you touch, document “risk → control → evidence”

Target outcomes:- Faster issue identification- Stronger documentation practices

If you scored 70–84: Expand scope and influence (8–12 weeks)

Monthly plan:- Lead one close retro: identify bottlenecks and propose improvements- Draft 2 technical memos on recurring topics (revenue timing, capitalization policy)- Mentor a junior teammate on reconciliations and review technique

Target outcomes:- Reduced rework, improved close predictability- Demonstrated leadership behaviors

If you scored 85–100: Prepare for next-level roles (12–16 weeks)

Growth plan:- Propose a control enhancement with measurable risk reduction- Automate one recurring analysis (Excel Power Query or ERP report standardization)- Build a mini “accounting policy” guide for common transactions

Target outcomes:- Clear ownership narrative: scope, impact, risk management

Career advancement strategies based on your outcomes

For candidates (how to use results)

• Translate results into a promotion narrative:
• “I improved reconciliation accuracy by implementing a standard tie-out and review cadence.”
• Build a portfolio of evidence:
• anonymized reconciliation template, variance analysis deck, technical memo sample.
• Target roles aligned to strengths:
• Strong controls + communication → reporting/audit liaison
• Strong Excel + analysis → FP&A bridge roles
• Strong close execution → GL close owner track

For employers (how to use results)

• Combine this score with a structured interview (same questions, same rubric) rather than freeform chats.
• Use results to design onboarding:
• Lower controls score → assign controls training + shadowing
• Lower Excel score → targeted data skills sprint
• Track practical metrics:
• time-to-productivity (weeks to own a reconciliation)
• close rework rate
• audit request turnaround time

Fairness, accessibility, and compliance (practical checklist)

A skill based process is strongest when it is job-related, consistent, and monitored.

Fairness and adverse impact monitoring

• Standardize prompts, time boxes, tools allowed, and scoring anchors.
• Monitor pass rates by group (as legally appropriate) using selection-rate ratios (e.g., 4/5ths screening diagnostic).
• If adverse impact appears:
• review whether content over-measures irrelevant skills
• check for inconsistent scoring
• evaluate less-discriminatory alternatives (e.g., work sample instead of trivia-heavy knowledge tests)

Accessibility and accommodations

• Offer reasonable accommodations (extended time where appropriate, accessible formats).
• Ensure digital materials are screen-reader friendly and avoid unnecessary visual-only cues.

Documentation (audit trail)

Maintain:

• Job-to-skill blueprint
• Assessment version history
• Scoring rubrics and calibration notes
• Decision rationale (scores + structured notes)

Curated resources to improve (credible, practical)

Accounting standards and professional foundations

• GAAP/IFRS refreshers via reputable university policy libraries and structured accounting courses
• Internal controls concepts (COSO-style thinking) and audit-readiness guides

Skill-building tools

• Excel: pivot-style summarization, lookup logic, error checks; practice with open datasets
• Templates: close checklist, reconciliation format, variance analysis one-pager
• Writing: short technical memos using a consistent structure: Issue → Guidance → Conclusion → Risks

How to operationalize this assessment (employer quick-start)

1) Select the role level (Staff vs Senior).

2) Choose 6–7 prompts from the bank (keep it ≤90 minutes).

3) Customize policy assumptions (capitalization threshold, revenue model).

4) Train scorers for 30 minutes using the 0–4 anchors.

5) Pilot with 3–5 internal employees (establish score ranges).

6) Set thresholds and any gates in advance.

7) Deploy and monitor completion rate, pass rate, and downstream performance indicators.

Final note: what makes this truly “skill based”

A skill based assessment is not a trivia quiz and not a proxy for pedigree. It evaluates evidence of job-related work—accurate entries, clean reconciliations, sound judgment, control awareness, and clear communication—scored against a transparent rubric. When used alongside structured interviews and role requirements, it can help teams make more informed decisions and set clearer expectations for hiring and growth.