Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review

Contemporary Accounting Research

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 411-444

  Gibbins, Michael ^a   Trotman, Ken T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Audit review; Field studies in auditing; Interpersonal persuasion; Quality control

Indexed keywords

EID: 0013206357     PISSN: 08239150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1506/J519-5LVU-JTMQ-YYJ7     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Asare, S. K., and L. S. McDaniel. 1996. The effects of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process. Accounting Review 71 (2): 139-60.
2. Bamber, E. M. 1983. Expert judgment in the audit team: A source reliability approach. Journal of Accounting Research 21 (Autumn): 396-412.
3. Bamber, E. M., and J. H. Bylinski. 1982. The audit team and the audit review process: An organizational approach. Journal of Accounting Literature (Spring): 33-58.
4. Bamber, E. M., and J. H. Bylinski. 1987. The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual audit characteristics on audit managers' review time judgements. Contemporary Accounting Research 4 (1): 127-63.
5. Bamber, E. M., L. Bamber, and J. H. Bylinski. 1988. A descriptive study of auditor managers' working paper review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 7 (Spring): 137-49.
6. Bamber, E. M., and R. J. Ramsay. 1997. An investigation of the effects of specialization in audit workpaper review. Contemporary Accounting Research 14 (3): 501-13.
7. Bamber, E. M., and R. J. Ramsay. 2000. The effects of specialization in audit workpaper review on review efficiency and reviewer confidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 19 (2): 147-57.
8. Coopers & Lybrand. 1992. The Coopers & Lybrand Manual of Auditing, 5th ed. London: Gee.
9. Gibbins, M., and J. D. Newton. 1994. An empirical exploration of complex accountability in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (2): 165-86.
10. Harding, N., and K. Trotman. 1999. Hierarchical differences in audit workpaper review performance. Contemporary Accounting Research 16 (4): 671-84.
11. Ismail, Z., and K. Trotman. 1995. The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks. Accounting, Organization and Society 20 (5): 345-57.
12. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31(2): 231-45.
13. Kennedy, J., and M. E. Peecher. 1997. Judging auditors' technical knowledge. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Autumn): 279-93.
14. Libby, R., and K. T. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (6): 559-74.
15. McDaniel, L. S. 1990. The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (2): 267-85.
16. Messier, W. F., Jr., and R. M. Tubbs. 1994. Recency effects in belief revision: The impact of audit experience and the review process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13 (1): 57-72.
17. Phillips, F. 1999. Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (1): 167-90.
18. Ramsay, R. 1994. Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performance. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (1): 127-35.
19. Ricchiute, D. 1999. The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (2): 155-71.
20. Rich, J. S. 2001. How do reviewers add value to the audit? Working paper, University of Connecticut.
21. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997a. The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (5): 481-505.
22. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997b. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: A decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 86-126.
23. Roebuck, P., and K. Trotman. 1992. A field study of the review process: A research note. ABACUS 28 (2): 200-10.
24. Solomon, I. 1987. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research. Journal of Accounting Literature 6: 1-25.
25. Sprinkle, G. B., and R. M. Tubbs. 1998. The effect of audit risk and information importance on auditor memory during working paper review. Accounting Review 73 (4): 475-502.
26. Tan, H.-T. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (1): 113-35.
27. Tan, H.-T. and K. Jamal. 2001. Do auditors objectively evaluate their subordinates' work? Accounting Review 76 (1): 101-12.
28. Trotman, K. T. 1985. The review process and the accuracy of auditor judgements. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (2): 740-52.
29. Trotman, K. T., and P. W. Yetton. 1985. The effect of the review process on auditor judgements. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (1): 256-67.
30. Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. Accounting Review 77 (1): 51-71.