Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

Posts

  • The Auditing Section
    Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? T...
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.01 Substantive Analytical Review – Effectiveness, 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.03 Adequacy of Evidence 
    Title:
    Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision
    Practical Implications:

    Analytical procedures are used frequently and increasingly are relied upon as substantive evidence. Based on this study, auditors are insensitive to the impreciseness of the analytical procedure when the results are favorable and may be a cause for over-reliance on weak evidence.  Performing a stronger, more precise analytical procedure caused participants in the favorable outcome situation to become more aware of the weakness of the initial procedure and re-evaluate their evidence strength rating. Further, evidence suggests that having auditors consider the possible weaknesses of an analytical procedure prior to performing the procedure will cause them to rate the strength of the evidence from a weak analytical procedure lower. Overall, this suggests a need to better train auditors in performing and interpreting analytical procedures.

    In a discussion of Glover et al.’s paper, McDaniel asks whether the findings may indicate that auditors in the unfavorable outcome (i.e. there is a material difference) are under-relying on the evidence rather than that auditors in the favorable outcome (no material difference) are over-relying on the evidence. Glover et al. respond that the over-relying of the evidence is of concern to regulators and the alternative does not explain all of the results.  McDaniel also notes that the case study was of a company in the financial industry but that the participants were not required to have any financial industry experience. Glover et al. note that the interest income item is the issue which is not specific to the industry or complicated.  McDaniel also notes concerns about a potential “anchoring” effect as the participants performed their analytical procedures based on prior year working paper results.  In response, Glover et al. discuss this feature of an audit. 

    Citation:

    Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, and T. J. Wilks. 2005.  Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  197-220.  

    McDaniel, L. 2005.  DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  221-228. 

    Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawlitt, and T. J. Wilks. 2005. REPLY TO DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  229-232.

    Home:
    home button
  • The Auditing Section
    Negotiations Over Accounting Issues: The Congruency of Audit...
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.10 Prior Dispositions/Biases/Auditor state of mind, 10.0 Engagement Management, 10.04 Interactions with Client Management 
    Title:
    Negotiations Over Accounting Issues: The Congruency of Audit Partner and Chief Financial Officer Recalls
    Practical Implications:

    The results of this study are important for auditors and managers to consider when negotiating.  For example, the authors propose that auditors must take the initiative if they hope to achieve a “win-win” compromise because CFOs view negotiation as surrounding one issue, while audit partners view negotiations as involving multiple issues at once.  Findings from negotiation research shows that “win-win” solutions are more likely when issues are integrated than when they are isolated.  Furthermore, the authors propose that audit partners should be trained to recognize that CFOs are more likely to view the negotiation as a “win-lose” negotiation.  As a result, auditors must be trained to use tactics to achieve good outcomes under a “win-lose” scenario or to purposefully change the negotiation to a “win-win” style of negotiation when the potential for such an outcome exists.  Finally, the authors propose that auditors should be trained to understand that CFOs have different perspectives on the context of the negotiation (such as differing opinions of staff expertise), and reaching good outcomes is partially dependent on understanding the perspective of the other party.

    Citation:

    Gibbins, M., S. A. McCracken, and S.E. Salterio. 2005. Negotiations Over Accounting Issues: The Congruency of Audit Partner and Chief Financial Officer Recalls. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 24 (Supplement): 171-193.

    Home:
    home button
  • The Auditing Section
    Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task,...1
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.01 Audit Scope and Materiality Judgments, 09.10 Prior Dispositions/Biases/Auditor state of mind 
    Title:
    Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Interaction Perspective
    Practical Implications:

    The last 25 years has been an exciting and very productive period for judgment and decision making research in auditing.  The author of the discussion believes this review study will help stimulate important audit judgment and decision making research.  This line of
    research is important because it has potential to make important contributis to the audit practice.

    Citation:

    Nelson, M.W. and H. Tan. 2005. Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 41-71.

    Trotman, K. T. 2005. Discussion of Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 73-87.

    Home:
    home button
  • The Auditing Section
    A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on...
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.01 Audit Scope and Materiality Judgments, 10.0 Engagement Management, 10.02 Materiality and Scope Decisions 
    Title:
    A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on Materiality: Two Decades Later
    Practical Implications:

    The results of the studies documented in this review suggest that there is a great deal of variability in the approaches taken by firms for establishing materiality. Such differences in materiality methods can affect both the effectiveness and efficiency of audits. For example, if firms differ in how they allocate materiality to financial statement accounts, then the scope of the work could differ across audits with similar characteristics. Auditors also appear to differ in terms of the factors they consider for determining the materiality of internal control weaknesses, suggesting that auditors may need more structured criteria to make materiality judgments about internal control weaknesses. Materiality judgments are influenced by authoritative guidance, suggesting that standard setters and audit firms have the ability to influence auditors’ materiality judgments by providing auditors with specific guidance.

    Citation:

    Messier, Jr., W.F., N. Martinov-Bennie, and A. Eilifsen. 2005. A review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 24 (2): 153-187.

    Home:
    home button
  • The Auditing Section
    An Investigation of Auditor Perceptions about Subsequent...
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.07 Impact of SEC Actions, 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.03 Adequacy of Evidence 
    Title:
    An Investigation of Auditor Perceptions about Subsequent Events and Factors That Influence This Audit Task
    Practical Implications:

    Auditors should recognize that an implicit tradeoff exists between the availability of subsequent event evidence and timelier reporting.  However, the net effect is not well understood because prior research has only focused on quantifying the benefits of timely reporting, not the costs associated with obtaining less subsequent event evidence.  The low evidence discovery rate reported by participants suggests that the current audit methodology might suffer from inefficiencies.  Further research should establish relative frequency information to help auditors generate hypotheses and guide audit planning.

     

    Citation:

    Janvrin, D. J. and C. G. Jeffrey. 2007. An Investigation of Auditor Perceptions about Subsequent Events and Factors That Influence This Audit Task.  Accounting Horizons 21 (3):  295-312

    Home:
    home button

Filter by Type

Filter by Tag