Audit technology structures’ effect on probabilistic judgement

Author:

Schroeder Richard G.,Reinstein Alan,Schwartz Bill N.

Abstract

Attempts to assess the impact of structured and unstructured audit approaches on the auditor’s professional judgement. The auditor’s use of judgement was measured by using the anchoring and adjustment instrument developed by Biddle and Joyce and the representativeness and protectiveness instrument developed by Uecker and Kinney. To ascertain the effect of audit technology on probabilistic judgement in auditing, 78 employees of ten offices of national Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firms ‐ 40 from unstructured firms and 38 from structured ones ‐ were surveyed. Findings indicate that public accountants’ probabilistic judgements were influenced by their firms’ audit technology structure and that the imposition of structure caused auditors to rely more on provided cues than on the use of judgement. These results help support Mintzberg’s suggestion that CPA firms modify their audit approaches to fit specific situations. For example, they should use structured approaches for clients with continuing good earnings announcements and less‐structured approaches for poorly performing clients.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Accounting,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Business, Management and Accounting

Reference30 articles.

1. 1Mintzberg, H., The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979.

2. 2Cushing, B. and Loebbecke, J.K., “Comparison of audit methodologies of large accounting firms”, Studies in Accounting Research No. 26, American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL, 1986.

3. 3Kinney, W.R. Jr, “Audit technology and preference for auditing standards”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1986, pp. 73‐89.

4. 4Sullivan, J.D., “The case for the unstructured audit approach”, in Stettler, H.F. and Ford, N.A. (Eds), Audit Symposium VII, University of Kansas Press, 1984, pp. 61‐8.

5. 5Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., “Subjective probability: a judgement of representativeness”, Cognitive Psychology, July 1972, pp. 430‐54.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3