Studies of the error-detection performance of audit procedures have found that three attention-directing procedures--client inquiry, expectations based on prior-year errors, and analytical review--signal almost half of the material errors detected. Further, the cost of performing such procedures appears to be relatively low, suggesting a positive cost/effectiveness relation. The primary purpose of the present study is to report detailed results of applying these attention-directing procedures when errors are identified. The sample consists of 186 engagements involving 368 proposed audit adjustments of a Big Eight audit firm. The results corroborate prior studies in that about half of the errors were signaled by the three attention-directing procedures and the simplest forms of these procedures (e.g., analytical reviews comparing current- and prior-year balances) identify many errors. Moreover, internal controls appear to condition the diagnosticity of audit procedures. When controls are strong, procedures involving internal accounting data are more diagnostic, while with weak controls evidence external to the accounting records signals relatively more errors.

[Studies of the error-detection performance of audit procedures have found that three attention-directing procedures-client inquiry, expectations based on prior-year errors, and analytical review-signal almost half of the material errors detected. Further, the cost of performing such procedures appears to be relatively low, suggesting a positive cost/effectiveness relation. The primary purpose of the present study is to report detailed results of applying these attention-directing procedures when errors are identified. The sample consists of 186 engagements involving 368 proposed audit adjustments of a Big Eight audit firm. The results corroborate prior studies in that about half of the errors were signaled by the three attention-directing procedures and the simplest forms of these procedures (e.g., analytical reviews comparing current- and prior-year balances) identify many errors. Moreover, internal controls appear to condition the diagnosticity of audit procedures. When controls are strong, procedures involving internal accounting data are more diagnostic, while with weak controls evidence external to the accounting records signals relatively more errors.]

Reviews the book "Auditing Theory and Practice," by C. William Thomas and Emerson O. Henke.

Reviews the book "Imperial Sportswear, Inc.: An Audit Case Problem," by Stephen Fogg.

We develop and test a model that links internal control over financial reporting (ICOFR) disclosures to users’ confidence in the standard audit report (SAR) on the financial statements. The model suggests that users’ confidence in the SAR is determined by the consistency of the message conveyed by the two audit reports. Based on this model, we hypothesize that users’ confidence in the SAR is lower in the presence of an entity level material weakness compared to an account specific material weakness and both confidence assessments are lower than the confidence assessments associated with the unqualified ICOFR report. We also propose that SAR confidence assessments affect investment judgments. We tested these hypotheses in two experiments. In Experiment 1, 65 equity analysts indicated their confidence in the SAR, assessed the risk of a stock price decline, and provided a stock recommendation on a public company that had received a SAR and an adverse ICOFR report (describing either an entity level or an account specific material weakness). In Experiment 2, 70 average investors evaluated the same company but were randomly assigned to three conditions (same adverse control conditions as in experiment 1 and an unqualified ICOFR condition). In addition, they provided assessments of information and verification risks, which allowed us to directly test our model. The findings are as hypothesized and support the notion that the apparent inconsistency between an adverse ICOFR report and the SAR undermines confidence in the SAR. Finally, confidence in the SAR affects investment judgments (risk of stock price decline) and decisions (stock recommendations).

Although skepticism is widely viewed as essential to audit quality, there is a debate about what form is optimal. The two prevailing perspectives that have surfaced are “neutrality” and “presumptive doubt.” With neutrality, auditors neither believe nor disbelieve client management. With presumptive doubt, auditors assume some level of dishonesty by management, unless evidence indicates otherwise. The purpose of this study is to examine which of these perspectives is most descriptive of auditors’ skeptical judgments and decisions, in higher and lower control environment risk settings. This issue is important, since there is a lack of empirical evidence as to which perspective is optimal in addressing client risks. An experimental study is conducted involving a sample of 96 auditors from one of the Big 4 auditing firms in the Netherlands, with experience ranging from senior to partner. One of the skepticism measures is reflective of neutrality, the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale ( HPSS ), whereas the other reflects presumptive doubt, the inverse of the Rotter Interpersonal Trust Scale ( RIT ). The findings suggest that the presumptive doubt perspective of professional skepticism is more predictive of auditor skeptical judgments and decisions than neutrality, particularly in higher‐risk settings. Since auditing standards prescribe greater skepticism in higher‐risk settings, the findings support the appropriateness of a presumptive doubt perspective and have important implications for auditor recruitment and training, guidance in audit tools, and future research.

This study examines the impact of alternative risk assessment (standard risk checklist versus no checklist) and program development (standard program versus no program) tools on two facets of fraud planning effectiveness: (1) the quality of audit procedures relative to a benchmark validated by a panel of experts, and (2) the propensity to consult fraud experts. A between‐subjects experiment, using an SEC enforcement fraud case, was conducted to examine these relationships. Sixty‐nine auditors made risk assessments and designed an audit program. We found that auditors who used a standard risk checklist, structured by SAS No. 82 risk categories, made lower risk assessments than those without a checklist. This suggests that the use of the checklist was associated with a less effective diagnosis of the fraud. We also found that auditors with a standard audit program designed a relatively less effective fraud program than those without this tool but were not more willing to seek consultation with fraud experts. This suggests that standard programs may impair auditors' ability to respond to fraud risk. Finally, our results show that fraud risk assessment (FRASK) was not associated with the planning of more effective fraud procedures but was directly associated with the desire to consult with fraud specialists. This suggests that one benefit of improved FRASK is its relation with consultation. Overall, the findings call into question the effectiveness of standard audit tools in a fraud setting and highlight the need for a more strategic reasoning approach in an elevated risk situation.

This study examines the linkage among the initial hypothesis set, the information search, and decision performance in performing analytical procedures. We manipulated the quality of the initial hypothesis set and the quality of the information search to investigate the extent to which deficiencies (or benefits) in either process can be remedied (or negated) by the other phase. The hypothesis set manipulation entailed inheriting a correct hypothesis set, inheriting an incorrect hypothesis set, or generating a hypothesis set. The information search was manipulated by providing a balanced evidence set to auditors (i.e., evidence on a range of likely causes including the actual cause ‐ analogous to a standard audit program) or asking them to conduct their own search. One hundred and two auditors participated in the study. The results show that auditors who inherit a correct hypothesis set and receive balanced evidence performed better than those who inherit a correct hypothesis set and did their own search, as well as those who inherited an incorrect hypothesis set and were provided a balanced evidence set. The former performance difference arose because auditors who conducted their own search were found to do repeated testing of non‐errors and truncated their search. This suggests that having a correct hypothesis set does not ensure that a balanced testing strategy is employed, which, in turn, diminishes part of the presumed benefits of a correct hypothesis set. The latter performance difference was attributable to auditors' failure to generate new hypotheses when they received evidence about a hypothesis that was not in the current hypothesis set. This demonstrates that balanced evidence does not fully compensate for having an initial incorrect hypothesis set. These findings suggest the need for firm training and/or decision aids to facilitate both a balanced information search and an iterative hypothesis generation process.

The recent financial crisis has brought to the forefront the need for companies to effectively manage their risks. In this regard, one approach that has gained prominence is enterprise risk management ( ERM ). Importantly, little is known about the link between ERM and the financial reporting process. This link is critical, because it is imperative that financial reporting adequately depicts the financial status (e.g., valuations, estimates) and associated risks of a company as revealed by ERM . Additionally, from an auditing perspective, ERM affects the risks of misstatement, which should impact audit planning. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to examine the experiences of audit partners, CFO s, and audit committee ( AC ) members (“the governance triad”) on the link between ERM and the financial reporting process. To determine whether members of the governance triad focus on monitoring, strategy, or both, we also examine their definition of and experiences with ERM with respect to agency and/or resource dependence theory. To address these issues, we conduct semistructured interviews of experienced individuals that form the governance triads from 11 public companies. There are three major findings from our study. First, importantly, all three types of participants see a strong link between ERM and the financial reporting process. Second, despite recognition of the broad nature of ERM , the predominant experiences of the actual roles played by triad members center on agency theory, while resource dependence may be relatively underemphasized by all triad members. Finally, CFO s and AC members indicate that auditors may be especially underutilizing ERM in the audit process, suggesting an “expectations gap.”