Affiliation:
1. University of Florida
2. University of West Georgia
3. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Abstract
Both client risk and workpaper preparer risk are important contextual factors that reviewers must manage. In this study, we experimentally investigate how combined client risk and preparer risk impact workpaper review effort and accuracy. We found that reviewers allocated more effort when reviewing workpapers of a high-risk client, relative to a low-risk client, but preparer risk did not drive effort. With respect to review accuracy, we found that in a high client risk environment, reviewers were more accurate when preparer risk was high than when preparer risk was low. However, when client risk was low, review accuracy was invariant to preparer risk. These results suggest that although preparer risk is not a driver of review effort, it nevertheless can affect accuracy when client risk is high. Together, the results suggest that review effort does not appear to be the sole determinant of review accuracy.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Subject
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Accounting
Reference27 articles.
1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1978. Planning and Supervision. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 22. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. - 1983. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting the Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. - 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献