Search results

This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments.

A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors.

Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages.

This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities.

Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns.

This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.

This paper synthesizes the extant feedback literature, focusing on how feedback affects an auditor’s learning, performance, and motivation. Performance feedback is an important component in the auditing environment for ensuring quality control and for developing and coaching staff auditors. However, the literature on feedback in the audit environment is fragmented and limited making it difficult to assess its behavioral effects on auditors. This paper has three main objectives. The first is to review some of the influential research in psychology and management to identify key variables and issues that appear to be critical in the study of behavioral consequences of feedback in organizational settings. The second is to review performance feedback research specifically in auditing to identify the areas previously examined and synthesize the findings. The third is to suggest a variety of future research opportunities that may assist in developing an understanding and knowledge of the behavioral effects of feedback on auditors. The literature analysis has significant implications for audit research and practice. In particular, the analysis provides important insights into understanding who, how, and when performance feedback should be given to improve its effectiveness in the audit environment.

The process performed during a financial statement audit is critical but is unobservable to external stakeholders. This can create challenges in assessing the quality of individual audit engagements. This study’s objective is to introduce and investigate an archival measure based on publicly available information that proxies for audit process ineffectiveness.

We proxy for audit process ineffectiveness using errors in the audit report. We examine audit reports to identify errors because the audit report represents the auditor’s primary communication with financial statement users and is subject to rigorous preparation and review. We first examine if typical factors influencing audit process ineffectiveness are associated with audit report errors. We then examine whether audit reports containing errors are associated with audit quality measures.

We find that errors are more likely to be present in audit reports when time pressure exists and less likely when auditors exert more effort and when audit engagement risk is higher. Results also show that errors in audit reports are positively associated with financial reporting misstatements, measured by subsequently disclosed Big R restatements and out-of-period adjustments.

Collectively, our evidence suggests that an audit report containing an error is a suitable proxy for audit process ineffectiveness. This proxy has audit quality implications because inattentiveness in one area of the audit process could indicate inattentiveness in another area.

In this paper, I synthesize the prior psychology literature on ego depletion and apply this literature to an auditing setting. Ego depletion refers to a reduced desire or ability to use self-control in task performance due to using self-control on prior tasks. I focus on the likely causes and consequences of depletion in an auditing setting, as well as means of mitigating depletion and recovering self-control resources. While ego depletion theory is prevalent in the psychology literature, little is known about whether or how ego depletion affects professionals on meaningful task performance. As a result, this synthesis is aimed at stimulating future ego depletion research in accounting, and specifically auditing, by surveying existing literature and applying this literature to an auditing setting. Further, I develop 13 questions for future research to investigate. My synthesis reveals that ego depletion likely has a pervasive effect in an auditing setting, and can hinder auditors’ judgment and decision-making (JDM) quality. Therefore, this synthesis helps to provide a greater understanding of the impact of auditing tasks on individuals, and refines both auditor JDM and ego depletion theories.

The effect of affect in accounting contexts has recently attracted interest, but numerous questions still remain. Given that affect can significantly impact a variety of accounting judgments and decisions in theoretically different manners, the purpose of this synthesis is to understand the state of extant accounting literature in affect and identify directions for future research.

This synthesis systematically reviews experimental accounting papers related to affect in both theoretical and functional respects. The authors first elaborate on the affect infusion theory as the theoretical foundation for the synthesis. The authors then present the sampling method. In Section 4, the authors conceptually and factually summarize affect accounting papers in terms of four major functional areas: auditing, managerial/corporate accounting, tax and financial accounting. The implications of moderators examined in some papers are also discussed. Finally, the authors conclude by revisiting the importance of affect in accounting contexts.

Throughout the synthesis, the authors provide future research opportunities with respect to theories, each functional area and other gaps in the accounting literature.

This synthesis contributes to the accounting literature by providing a pathway to understand the development of accounting research on affect, integrating theoretical foundations and offering future research opportunities to advance the literature.

Notes that expansion of academic quality audit methodologies within higher education institutions is a significant recent development in UK quality assurance, reflecting a shift to more dynamic processes to support self‐regulation. Describes the range of current practice encountered in a survey of 25 higher education providers and offers a series of simple conceptual frameworks that help explain the nature of internal audit processes. A companion article explores the potential of internal academic quality audit for contributing to a national quality assurance framework.

Prior research suggests that perceived levels of a subordinate auditor’s competence affects audit reviewers’ judgments. We extend this line of research by investigating the effects of perceived client competence (hereafter, ClientComp) and its interaction with subordinate auditor’s competence (hereafter, AuditorComp) on audit reviewers’ judgments. Using data from highly experienced CPA audit managers, senior managers, and partners, we find a significant main effect for AuditorComp, but not for ClientComp. We also find that when AuditorComp is high, levels of ClientComp do not affect audit reviewers’ judgments. However, we cannot support the hypothesis that when AuditorComp is low ClientComp will significantly affect audit reviewers’ judgments. These mixed results suggest that in the post-SOX (2002) era regulatory environment, audit reviewers may be exercising heightened professional skepticism about ClientComp whenever they consider clients’ assertions.

A recent change to audit workpaper review has been the movement toward delegating more review tasks to senior auditors and including more staff auditors in the review process. This study investigates the efficiency and effectiveness implications of this change. It considers the calibration of reviewers of different levels of experience on both conceptual and mechanical errors. The results reveal that reviewers are miscalibrated (overconfident) in their workpaper error judgments. No differences are found in the calibration of staff and senior auditors across hierarchical level or type of error. The implications for audit effectiveness are discussed in the paper.