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.]

We examine the determinants of “audit delay,” the number of calendar days from fiscal year‐end to the audit report date. A descriptive model of audit delay is tested on a sample of 465 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange from 1977 to 1982. Although several variables included in the model are statistically significant, the proportion of variability in audit delay explained by the variables is low. Descriptive data are presented for variables consistently associated with audit delay over the six‐year period — auditor size, industry classification, existence of extraordinary items, and sign of net income. Some directions for future research are also suggested. Résumé. Les auteurs examinent les déterminants du «délai de vérification», soit le nombre de jours francs qui s'écoulent entre la fin de l'exercice financier et la publication du rapport des vérificateurs. Ils vérifient un modèle descriptif du délai de vérification sur un échantillon de 465 entreprises cotées à la bourse de Toronto, de 1977 à 1982. Bien que plusieurs variables incluses dans le modèle soient statistiquement significatives, la proportion de la variation du délai de vérification expliquée par ces variables est mince. Les auteurs présentent des données descriptives pour les variables associées de façon uniforme au délai de vérification, sur la période de six ans — la taille du cabinet de vérification, la classification du secteur, l'existence de postes extraordinaires et le caractère positif ou négatif du résultat net. Ils suggèrent également certaines pistes de recherche à envisager.