Investor Knowledge of Mutual Fund Types, Risk Understanding, and Financial Benefits: A PRISMA Based Systematic Review
List of Authors
Ang Hong Loong, Catherine Wong Shiau Ling, Chan Fui Shan, Pang Yeng Yuan
Keyword
Mutual fund investors, investment risk understanding, financial literacy, PRISMA, systematic literature review
Abstract
This research provides a PRISMA informed set of guidelines specific to the systematic review of literature about investor literacy related to mutual funds, financial risk, and financial literacy. It provides a response to some general methodological weaknesses found in the existing reviews of finance and investment behaviour. While systematic review and meta-analysis are fundamental in evidence-based practice, lack of adherence to PRISMA guidelines has limited transparency and replicability. This study draws on a PRISMA approach for methods. It details the process of the review of reviews, specifically the databases and search strategies used, as well as the screening process and eligibility criteria, and how the reviews were synthesized. The process is demonstrated using the major academic databases. A PRISMA structured flow diagram and clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were presented to ensure a more homogeneous application of the technique. The PRISMA checklist is more explicit in terms of identify, screening and selecting studies. It improves clarity on how often knowledge categories of investors, constructs of understanding of risks, and measures of awareness of financial benefits are reported. This would also reveal common deficiencies across the reviews. These include the absence of clear variable definitions, a lack of justification for search strategies, and reviews that are not reproducible. The current PRISMA-compliant manual provides a replicable template for the potential development of high-quality systematic reviews in the field of mutual fund and investment literacy. This not only increases the methodological strength of a study, but it also enhances the potential for comparability among studies and its relative strengths for synthesis for other researchers, policy makers and practitioners.