A field-based analysis of audit workpaper review

Auditing

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 85-110

  Fargher, Neil L ^a   Mayorga, Diane ^b   Trotman, Ken T ^b  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751564038     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.2.85     Document Type: Review

References (21)

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. The Accounting Review 71 (2): 139-159.
2. Bamber, E. M., and J. H. Bylinski. 1982. The audit team and the audit review process: An organizational approach. Journal of Accounting Research 1: 33-58.
3. _, and R. J. Ramsay. 1997. An investigation of the effects of specialization in audit workpaper review. Contemporary Accounting Research 14 (Fall): 501-513.
4. Bamber, L., T. E. Christensen, and K. M. Gaver. 2000. Do we really "know" what we think we know? A case study of seminal research and its subsequent overgeneralization. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25: 103-129.
5. Gibbins, M., and J. D. Newton. 1994. An empirical exploration of complex accountability in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (2): 165-186.
6. _, S. Salterio, and A. Webb. 2001. Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning client's financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 39 (3): 535-564.
7. _, and K. T Trotman. 2002. Audit review: Managers' interpersonal expectations and conduct of the review. Contemporary Accounting Research 19 (Fall): 411-444.
8. Harding, N., and K. Trotman. 1999. Hierarchical differences in audit workpaper review performance. Contemporary Accounting Research 16 (4): 671-84.
9. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA). 2003. Members' Handbook, Code of Professional Conduct. Section Fl-Professional Independence. Sydney, Australia: ICAA.
10. Ismail, Z., and K. T. Trotman. 1995. The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (5): 345-357.
11. Kearns, K. P. 1994. The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review 54 (2): 185-192.
12. Peecher, M. E. 2002. A discussion of: Audit review: Managers' interpersonal expectations and conduct of the review. Contemporary Accounting Research 19 (Fall): 445-448.
13. Ramsay, R. J. 1994. Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performance. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (1): 127-135.
14. 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.
15. _,_, and _. 1997b. Multi-auditor judgement/decision making research: A decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 86-126.
16. Sinason, D. H. 2000. A study of the effects of accountability and engagement risk on auditor materiality decisions in public sector audits. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 12 (1): 1-21.
17. Solomon, I. 1987. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research. Journal of Accounting Literature 6: 1-25.
18. Spicer, B. H. 1992. The resurgence of cost and management accounting: A review of some recent developments in practice, theories, and case research methods. Management Accounting Research 3 (1): 1-37.
19. Tan, H-T., and K. Jamal. 2001. Do auditors objectively evaluate their subordinates' work? The Accounting Review 76 (1): 99-110.
20. _, and K. T Trotman. 2003. Reviewers' responses to anticipated stylization attempts by preparers to audit working papers. The Accounting Review 78 (2): 583-604.
21. Yin, R. K. 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.