Auditing, Auditor judgement, Psychology

Auditing, Auditor judgement, Intercorrelated data sources, Statistical inferences

The article presents a reply to comments made by Professors, Kung H. Chen and S.J. Lambert on a study related to disclosure among public accountants and security analysts. The author states that the principal null hypothesis of the study was that there is no difference between the value of information to security analysts as perceived by account-ants and the value of information to security analysts for equity investment decisions. Chen and Lambert have noted that the calculated mean response of Group A subjects was numerically higher than that of Group C for 11 out of 58 information items, while Group C had higher mean values compared to Group A for 47 out of 58 items. They also noted a difference in the patterns of dispersion. The author agrees to their observation but stated that the objective of the study was to examine whether users and preparers of the corporate annual reports agree on the value of various information items for equity investment decisions. Differences in the value ratings were to be expected, however, the direction of the differences could not be predicted.

A description was developed of external auditors' subjective decision environment in the case of a normal manufacturing company audit. Eighty partners and managers from six national public accounting firms in Canada responded to an extensive questionnaire asking them to evaluate potential environmental components at several stages in the audit engagement: (1) before the beginning of the work, (2) at several operational stages and (3) after the audit's completion. The audit environment was revealed to be complex: though some components were perceived to be consistently important throughout the audit, the importance of others waxed and waned as the audit progressed. A highly interdependent, client-oriented environment was portrayed by respondents.

Reviews the book "Canadian Financial Accounting: Principles and Issues," by I.S. Rosen and M.H. Granof.

During the first 10 years of Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) , Fail 1984 through Spring 1994, 313 articles and discussions were published. The main research methods reported in these articles were empirical data analysis, analytical modeling, and behavioral experimentation. The main topic areas were financial accounting, managerial accounting, and auditing. CAR considers for publication any papers of interest to the Canadian accounting research community, so this mix of methods and topics is not surprising and reflects the mix of papers submitted to CAR over the years. The articles and discussions in CAR represented 523 listed authors. A number of authors have appeared more than once, with the result that, over the 10 years, 358 different authors from 142 institutions have contributed to CAR. The great majority of the authors were university professors; at the time of authorship, slightly more authors were assistant than full or associate professors. Eighty‐eight percent of the authors were male, but the percentage of female authors has steadily increased. CAR serves the Canadian accounting research community through the array of articles and discussions it publishes. Additional aspects of its Canadian service are the facts that 26 percent of the authors of the articles and discussions were resident at Canadian institutions, 17 percent of the articles dealt explicitly with a Canadian accounting issue or used Canadian data, and French abstracts of all articles plus articles completely in French represent 9 percent of the total pages of articles. As of June 1994, 696 members of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association and subscribers to CAR , as well as 286 institution libraries received the journal, representing 408 institutions. The majority of the individual member/subscribers were resident in Canada; the majority of the institutions were outside Canada. Résumé. Au cours de ses dix premières années d'existence, de l'automne 1984 au printemps 1994, Recherche comptable contemporaine (CAR) a publié 313 articles et analyses critiques. Les principales méthodes de recherche utilisées par les auteurs sont l'analyse de données empiriques, l'élaboration de modèles d'analyse et l'expérimentation comportementale, et les principaux sujets abordés relèvent de la finance, de la comptabilité, de la comptabilité de management et de la vérification. CAR s'intéresse à tout texte présentant un intérêt pour la communauté canadienne des chercheurs en comptabilité, de sorte que cette diversité de méthodes et de sujets n'est pas étonnante et reflète la variété des articles soumis à la revue au cours des années. Les articles et les analyses critiques publiés par CAR sont l'œuvre de 523 auteurs répertoriés. Bon nombre d'entre eux ont contribué à la revue à plusieurs reprises, si bien qu'en 10 ans, 358 auteurs différents provenant de 142 établissements ont collaboré à la revue. La grande majorité des auteurs sont des professeurs d'université; au moment de leur collaboration, les auteurs étaient un peu plus fréquemment professeurs adjoints que professeurs titulaires ou professeurs agrégés. De ces auteurs, 88 pour cent sont des hommes, le pourcentage d'auteurs féminins ayant cependant augmenté régulièrement. CAR s'adresse à la communauté canadienne des chercheurs en comptabilité en offrant à ses lecteurs un vaste éventail d'articles et d'analyses critiques. Mais elle offre à ses lecteurs canadiens des services qui se distinguent à d'autres égards: 26 pour cent des auteurs des articles et des analyses critiques résidaient, au moment de leur collaboration, dans des établissements canadiens, 17 pour cent des articles portent explicitement sur des questions comptables d'intérêt canadien ou font usage de données canadiennes, et les résumés français de tous les articles ainsi que les articles qui sont publiés intégralement en français représentent 9 pour cent du total des pages consacrées aux articles. Au mois de juin 1994, 696 membres de l'Association Canadienne des Professeurs de Comptabilité et d'abonnés à la revue CAR , représentant 408 établissements, ainsi que 286 bibliothèques d'établissements d'enseignement ou d'entreprises, recevaient la revue. La majorité des membres et abonnés à titre personnel résidaient au Canada, et la majorité des établissements étaient étrangers.

A description of factors contributing to good judgment is developed by considering both the process of exercising judgment and the results of having exercised it. Factors are developed from public accountants' perceptions of important components in characterizing good professional judgment in public accounting. Descriptive data about important judgment quality factors are presented and hypotheses concerning justification are tested using responses to a process‐oriented questionnaire. The emphasis is on the natural environment of the professional accountant and the types of judgment situations which occur in the field, with reliance on respondents to interpret their own comments. The questionnaire results provide a description of judgment factors which professional accountants see as important. Factor categories related to expectation, outcome, and justification perspectives on judgment quality are shown to play a role in defining good judgment, with variations related to position (level of responsibility) in the accounting firm. The results also indicate that justification is perceived differently by people in different positions. Résumé. Les auteurs décrivent les facteurs contribuant à la qualité du jugement en prenant en considération à la fois le processus d'exercice du jugement et les résultats de ce processus. Ces facteurs ont été déterminés à partir des éléments perçus par les experts‐comptables comme étant importants dans la définition de ce qu'est un bon jugement professionnel, en expertise comptable. Les auteurs présentent des données descriptives au sujet des principaux indices de qualité du jugement et testent certaines hypothèses relatives à la justification, à partir de réponses à un questionnaire axé sur le processus. Ils s'intéressent à l'environnement naturel du comptable professionnel et aux cas de jugement qu'on retrouve dans la pratique, en confiant aux répondants le soin d'interpréter leurs propres observations. Les résultats du questionnaire offrent une description des facteurs que les comptables professionnels jugent importants dans l'évaluation de la qualité d'un jugement. Il semble que les catégories de facteurs reliées à une évaluation en termes d'attentes, de résultats et de justification jouent un certain rôle dans la définition de ce qu'est un bon jugement, qui varie selon le poste occupé (niveau de responsabilité) à l'intérieur du cabinet comptable. Les résultats indiquent également que l'on perçoit la justification différemment selon le poste.

This paper presents an interpersonal model of audit file review centered on the audit manager. A manager's conduct of the review is affected by four components: the manager's expectations about the client, expectations about the preparer, expectations about the partner, and the manager's own approach and circumstances. The paper then presents a comprehensive field-based analysis of how a working paper review is conducted. It supplements the mostly experimental research on working paper review by reporting the results of a retrospective field questionnaire that asked audit managers to report on their behavior and their relationships with preparers and partners on actual audit engagements. The extent of review was sensitive to specific features of the client and the file (including risk factors), to features of the preparer, and particularly to the style of the reviewer, which was quite stable across cases. Although the evidence of managers' awareness of preparers' “stylizing” the file to suit the manager was weak, the evidence of managers' stylizing for the partners was pervasive, affecting both work done and documentation. Managers believed that good reviews emphasized key issues and risks rather than detail. Other new descriptive evidence on the nature of the review process is provided, including the purpose of the review process, how frequently surprises are found in the review process, and the qualities of good reviewers compared with poor reviewers. The implications of our model and our results for future research are outlined.

This paper presents an interpersonal model of audit file review centered on the audit manager. A manager's conduct of the review is affected by four components: the manager's expectations about the client, expectations about the preparer, expectations about the partner, and the manager's own approach and circumstances. The paper then presents a comprehensive field‐based analysis of how a working paper review is conducted. It supplements the mostly experimental research on working paper review by reporting the results of a retrospective field questionnaire that asked audit managers to report on their behavior and their relationships with preparers and partners on actual audit engagements. The extent of review was sensitive to specific features of the client and the file (including risk factors), to features of the preparer, and particularly to the style of the reviewer, which was quite stable across cases. Although the evidence of managers' awareness of preparers' “stylizing” the file to suit the manager was weak, the evidence of managers' stylizing for the partners was pervasive, affecting both work done and documentation. Managers believed that good reviews emphasized key issues and risks rather than detail. Other new descriptive evidence on the nature of the review process is provided, including the purpose of the review process, how frequently surprises are found in the review process, and the qualities of good reviewers compared with poor reviewers. The implications of our model and our results for future research are outlined.