Search results

Calls for the development and dissemination of evidence-based programs to support children and families have been increasing for decades, but progress has been slow. This paper aims to argue that a singular focus on evaluation has limited the ways in which science and research is incorporated into program development, and advocate instead for the use of a new concept, “scientific accompaniment,” to expand and guide program development and testing.

A heuristic is provided to guide research–practice teams in assessing the program’s developmental stage and level of evidence.

In an idealized pathway, scientific accompaniment begins early in program development, with ongoing input from both practitioners and researchers, resulting in programs that are both effective and scalable. The heuristic also provides guidance for how to “catch up” on evidence when program development and science utilization are out of sync.

While implementation models provide ideas on improving the use of evidence-based practices, social service programs suffer from a significant lack of research and evaluation. Evaluation resources are typically not used by social service program developers and collaboration with researchers happens late in program development, if at all. There are few resources or models that encourage and guide the use of science and evaluation across program development.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between advocacy on behalf of libraries and impact evaluation in a national public library development context in which the boundaries between these two roles are likely to be blurred, creating ethical issues for all concerned.

The authors draw upon their broad experience of helping various international organisations to develop strategic approaches to impact planning and evaluation for public libraries, as well as their work in helping to develop library practice at national level, in order to focus on and examine the creative tensions between impact evaluation and advocacy.

There are particular issues for all key participants (international programme funders, policy shapers, service managers, evaluators and advocates) in planning, supporting and delivering impact evaluation programmes. Most of these can be addressed directly but some (such as balancing programme requirements against local priorities, or achieving a balance between collecting evidence based on predetermined impact indicators and progressive focusing) entail management of the tensions between conflicting pressures.

Specific ways forward are offered to encourage ethical advocacy and impact evaluation at national library development level. These principles are equally applicable to education and health library development and to public library development at regional or local levels.

The particular issues of advocacy and impact evaluation in the national public library development context have not previously been recognized in the international development literature addressing advocacy and evaluation or in the library and information services research literature.

This study is an attempt to explore Spanish auditors' sensitivity towards financial evidence and the implications of the so‐called “recency effect” in a context of an ambiguous standard.

Using Hogarth and Einhorn's belief revision model, we designed a lab experiment to examine how presentation order affects the going concern judgments and the audit decisions of auditors, and the level of skepticism showed by auditors towards the signs of evidence. Two important factors, which may affect the decision‐making process and auditors' attitude to the evidence were also manipulated: the hypothesis frame and audit experience. The sample of subjects participating in this study comprises 81 Spanish auditors and 104 auditing postgraduate students.

It was found an order effect, whereby those auditors who received favorable evidence at the end of a series showed greater confidence in their client's continuity and thus issued less severe audit reports than in the case of when negative evidence was processed last. Further, it was did not found that experience or framing reduced the recency bias. Moreover, the estimation of auditor sensitivity to the evidence suggests a lack of professional skepticism in the evaluation of the client's going concern status.

First, the structure of auditing standards might contribute to auditors' reluctance to issue qualified audit reports. Second, the absence of skepticism might be contributing to the profound debate and notable feeling of distrust regarding the social function that the auditor profession should fulfill.

Recent major financial scandals give us a reason to question whether auditors are skeptical in the going concern task. This study expands previous research of Bamber et al. by investigating the auditors' attitude towards the evidence in the going concern evaluation.

I synthesize the extant experimental literature examining auditor evaluation of others’ credibility published in six top accounting journals over the last three-and-a-half decades. I adapt the original definition of credibility by Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953): the extent of perceiving someone as competent and trustworthy. Audit guidance requires auditors to consider credibility of management, internal auditors, and staff, yet the research literature on auditor evaluation of others’ credibility is fragmented and scarce, limiting our understanding of determinants and consequences of auditor evaluations. I develop a framework for analysis of research on auditor evaluation of others’ credibility and review extant literature by types of examined effects (determinants of credibility vs. consequences of credibility) and by examined credibility components (competence, trustworthiness, or both). Throughout the literature review I suggest areas for future research.

Many higher education institutions (HEIs) have constructed their internal evaluation systems to secure teaching quality. This paper aims to analyze teaching quality, HEIs use students to evaluate their professors as they have direct contact with the professors during the whole semester. The authorities hope to receive valuable information, which can be used for many administrative purposes. The bias in the evaluation toward professors’ gender and attractiveness has already been proven. However, there is only limited evidence whether students give higher value to teaching quality over the professors’ personality.

In this paper, the authors go further in the gender-attractiveness evidence and put the evaluation in contrast with professors’ experience, age, etc.

The results indicate that the effect of experience predominates the effect of gender and in some areas also the effect of age. What is more, a semester in which a course is taken also influences the evaluation as different professors’ abilities are required in teaching in a different semester. On the other hand, the results do not fully confirm the effect of gender on the evaluation.

The results reveal that it is important to consider the course structure to assign professors to the right courses.

This research seeks to examine whether two relevant characteristics, source objectivity and internal control effectiveness, influence how auditors evaluate evidence items supporting accounting estimates.

A controlled experiment approach with a sample of 24 auditors from one large international firm.

Results indicate that effective internal controls reduce the impact of relying on internal as opposed to external evidence items. Results also suggest that auditors place reliance on internal control effectiveness when they evaluate external evidence items.

Recent professional trends, such as the demand for faster financial reporting, put pressure on auditors to rely on internal rather than more persuasive external evidence items. Relying on less persuasive evidence items reduces audit effectiveness. Auditors may respond by examining a second evidence characteristic; US audit standards suggest evaluating internal control effectiveness if evidence was generated from internal (i.e. client) sources. Thus, this study explores whether internal control effectiveness reduces the impact of relying on evidence items with lower source objectivity.

Prior research has concentrated on examining the impact of a change in one evidence characteristic on audit judgment; this study expands the understanding of the evidence evaluation process by exploring how auditors evaluate multiple evidence characteristics. Furthermore, as suggested by Bonner, this research identifies an audit judgment deficiency (i.e. reliance on less persuasive internal evidence due to the demand for faster financial reporting) and examines one potential remedy (i.e. consideration of internal control effectiveness).

The belief-adjustment model has been an integral part of accounting research in belief revision, especially in the examination of order effects. Hogarth and Einhorn ((1992) Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55) created the belief-adjustment model to serve as a theoretical framework for studying individuals’ decision-making processes. The model examines several aspects of decision-making, such as encoding, response mode, and task factors. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive examination of the accounting studies that have used the theoretical framework of the belief-adjustment model in auditing, tax, and financial accounting contexts. Roberts’ ((1998) Journal of the American Taxation Association, 20, 78–121) model of tax accountants’ decision-making is used as a guideline to organize the research into categories. By using Roberts’ categorization, we can better sort out the mixed results of some prior studies and also expand the review to include a more comprehensive look at the model and its application to accounting. While many variables have been examined with respect to their effect on accounting professionals’ belief revisions, most studies examine them in isolation and do not consider the interaction effects that these variables may have. Our framework also identifies areas of the belief-adjustment model that need further research.

This chapter examines whether professional auditors’ affect toward client management influences fraud likelihood judgments and whether accountability and experience with fraud risk judgments moderate this effect. This research also explores the process by which affect influences fraud judgments by examining affect’s influence on the evaluation of fraud evidence cues. Results indicate that more positive affect toward the client results in lower fraud likelihood judgments. Accountability is found to moderate this effect, but only for experienced auditors. These findings have implications for fraud brainstorming sessions where all staff levels provide input into fraud risk assessments and because client characteristics are especially salient during these assessments. Importantly, results also support the proposition that affect impacts inexperienced auditors’ fraud assessments through errant attribution of client likability to evidence cues that refer to management, rather than biasing all client-related evaluations. Together, these findings suggest that education and training can be improved to better differentiate relevant and irrelevant cues in fraud judgment.

The evaluation of evidence is a key component of the tax research task. This study adds to the current literature regarding evidence evaluation and confirmation bias in the accounting profession. Previous studies have suggested that tax professionals prefer evidence that confirms their initial opinion, which is consistent with the findings in the psychology literature. This study considers the effects of the tax professional's environment in which these decisions are made. First, staff accountants responsible for finding and evaluating evidence are directly accountable to a supervising accountant. Second, client advocacy is prevalent in all decisions in public accounting. Client advocacy results in a preference for the client-favorable position. Staff accountant subjects in this study were found to be affected by the opinions of their supervisors. However, this effect was moderated by the preference for the client-favorable position. Subjects in an evidence evaluation task confirmed their supervisor's opinions (going against their own initial opinions) only when the opinion was the client-favorable position. When the supervisor's opinion was not client-favorable, accountants confirmed their own initial opinions (going against their supervisors' opinions). These findings supplement the findings of previous studies by determining how contextual factors such as accountability and client advocacy affect the influence of confirmation bias in an evidence evaluation task.