The effect of alternative types of review on auditors' procedures and performance

Auditing

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 207-220

  Payne, Elizabeth A ^a   Ramsay, Robert J ^b   Bamber, E Michael ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Interactive review; Review process; Written review

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956593409     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.207     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006. Planning and Supervision. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 108. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2009. A Firm's System of Quality Control. Quality Control Section 10. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. Ashton, R. H. 1990. Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback, and justification. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supp): 148-180.
4. Bamber, E. M., and J. H. Bylinski. 1987. The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research 4 (1): 127-143.
5. Bamber, E. M., and J. H. Bylinski, and R. J. Ramsay. 1997. An investigation of the effects of specialization in audit workpaper review. Contemporary Accounting Research 14 (3): 501-513.
6. Bacsik, J. M., and S. F. Rizzo. 1983. Review of audit workpapers. The CPA Journal 53 (11): 87-88.
7. Brazel, J. F., C. P. Agoglia, and R. C. Hatfield. 2004. Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors' performance. The Accounting Review 79 (4): 949-966.
8. Collins, A. M., and E. F. Loftus. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82 (6): 407-428.
9. Craik, F. I. M., and R. S. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671-684.
10. Doney, P. M., and G. M. Armstrong. 1996. Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers. Academy of Marketing Science 24 (1): 57-65.
11. Fargher, N. L., D. Mayorga, and K. T. Trotman. 2005. A field-based analysis of audit workpaper review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (2): 85-110.
12. Favere-Marchesi, M. 2006. Audit review: The impact of discussion timing and familiarity. Behavioral Research in Accounting 28: 91-105.
13. Gibbins, M., and J. D. Newton. 1994. An empirical exploration of complex accountability in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (2): 165-186.
14. Gibbins, M., and J. D. Newton, and K. T. Trotman. 2002. Audit review: Managers' interpersonal expectations and conduct of the review. Contemporary Accounting Research 19 (3): 411-444.
15. Harding, N., and K. T. Trotman. 1999. Hierarchical differences in audit workpaper review. Contemporary Accounting Research 16 (4): 671-684.
16. 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.
17. Johnson, V. E., and S. E. Kaplan. 1991. Experimental evidence on the effects of accountability on auditor judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Supp): 96-107.
18. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (2): 231-245.
19. Lerner, J. S., and P. E. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125 (2): 255-276.
20. Lord, A. T. 1992. Pressure: A methodological consideration for behavioral research in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11 (2): 89-108.
21. Miller, C. L., D. B. Fedor, and R. J. Ramsay. 2006. Effects of discussion of audit reviews on auditors' motivation and performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting 19: 91-106.
22. Moeckel, C. 1991. Two factors affecting an auditor's ability to integrate audit evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research 8 (1): 270-292.
23. Pedhazur, E. J. 1982. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research-Explanation and Prediction. 2nd edition. New York, NY: CBS College Publishing.
24. Ramsay, R. J. 1994. Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performance. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (1): 127-135.
25. Ricchiute, D. N. 1998. Auditing and Assurance Services. 5th edition. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
26. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997a. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: A decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 86-126.
27. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997b. The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (5): 481-505.
28. Rosenshine, B., C. Meister, and S. Chapman. 1996. Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research 66 (2): 181-221.
29. Schlenker, B. R. 1980. Impression Management: The Self Concept & Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.
30. Tan, J. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (1): 113-135.
31. Tan, H., and A. Kao. 1999. Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (1): 209-223.
32. Winograd, B. N., J. S. Gerson, and B. L. Berlin. 2000. Audit practices of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (2): 175-182.