How doaudit workpaper reviewers cope with the conflicting pressures of detecting misstatements and balancing client workloads?

Auditing

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 27-43

  Agoglia, Christopher P ^a   Brazel, Joseph F ^b   Hatfield, Richard C ^c   Jackson, Scott B ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit quality; Electronic communication; Face to face interaction; Misstatement risk; Review process; Workload pressure

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149305212     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2010.29.2.27     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Agoglia, C. P., T. Kida, and D. M. Hanno. 2003. The effects of alternative justification memos on the judgments of audit reviewees and reviewers. Journal of Accounting Research 41 (1): 33-46.
2. Agoglia, C. P., T. Kida, and D. M. Hanno, R.C. Hatfield, J.F. Brazel. 2009. The effects of audit review format on review team judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 28 (1): 95-111.
3. Allen, R. D., D. R. Hermanson, T. M. Kozloski, and R. J. Ramsay. 2006. Auditor risk assessment: Insights from the academic literature. Accounting Horizons 20 (2): 157-178.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1978. Planning and Supervision. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 22. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in Financial Statements. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
6. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006a. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 107. New York, NY: AICPA.
7. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006b. Performing Audit Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks and Evaluating the Audit Evidence Obtained. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 110. New York, NY: AICPA.
8. Asare, S. K., and L. McDaniel. 1996. The effect of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process. The Accounting Review 71 (2): 139-159.
9. Ball, R. 2008. What is the actual economic role of financial reporting? Accounting Horizons 22 (4): 427-432.
10. Baltes, B. B., M. W. Dickson, M. P. Sherman, C. C. Bauer, and J. S. LaGanke. 2002. Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87 (1): 156-179.
11. 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.
12. Bamber, E. M., and J. H. Bylinski, and R. Ramsey. 1988. A descriptive study of audit managers' working paper review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 7: 137-149.
13. Beasley, M., J. Carcello, and D. Hermanson. 1999. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987-1997, An Analysis of U.S. Public Companies. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Jersey City, NJ: AICPA.
14. Bell, T, W. R. Knechel, and J. Willingham. 1994. An Exploratory Analysis of the Determinants of Audit Engagement Resource Allocations. Proceedings of Deloitte & Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems: 49-67. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
15. Bhojraj, S., and R. Libby. 2005. Capital market pressure, disclosure frequency-induced earnings/cash flow conflict, and managerial myopia. The Accounting Review 80 (1): 1-20.
16. Biggs, S. F., T. J. Mock, and P. R. Watkins. 1988. Auditors' use of analytical review in audit program design. The Accounting Review 63 (1): 148-161.
17. 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.
18. Brazel, J. F., C. P. Agoglia, and R. C. Hatfield, T.D. Carpenter, and J. G. Jenkins. 2010. Auditors' use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud: Reports from the field. The Accounting Review (forthcoming).
19. Carpenter, T. D. 2007. Audit team brainstorming, fraud risk identification, and fraud risk assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99. The Accounting Review 82 (5): 1119-1140.
20. Choo, F. 1995. Auditors' judgment performance under stress: A test of the predicted relationship by three theoretical models. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 10 (3): 611-641.
21. Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on Statutory Audit of Annual Accounts and Consolidated Accounts, Amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and Repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC. Brussels, Belgium: CEC.
22. Daft, R. L., R. H. Lengel, and L. K. Trevino. 1987. Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly 11 (3): 354-366.
23. Davidson, R., and W. Gist. 1996. Empirical evidence on the functional relation between audit planning and total audit effort. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (1): 111-124.
24. DeZoort, F. T, and A. T. Lord. 1997. Review and synthesis of pressure effects research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 28-85.
25. Emby, C, and M. Gibbins. 1988. Good judgment in public accounting: Quality and justification. Contemporary Accounting Research 4: 287-313.
26. 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.
27. Favere-Marchesi, M. 2006. Audit review: The impact of discussion timing and familiarity. Behavioral Research in Accounting 18: 53-64.
28. French, J. R., and R. D. Caplan. 1972. Organizational stress and individual strain. In The Failure of Success, edited by Marrow, A. J., 30-66. New York, NY: AMACOM.
29. Gibbins, M., and K. T. Trotman. 2002. Audit review: Managers' interpersonal expectations and conduct of the review. Contemporary Accounting Research 19 (3): 411-444.
30. Glover, S., D. Prawitt, and D. Wood. 2008. Internal audit sourcing arrangement and the external auditor's reliance decision. Contemporary Accounting Research 25 (1): 193-213.
31. Gullapalli, D. 2005. Take this job and file it. Burdened by extra work created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, CPAs leave the Big Four for a better life. Wall Street Journal: C1. Available at: http://www.dzhphillips.com/inc/wsj-article.pdf.
32. Houston, R. W. 1999. The effects of fee pressure and client risk on audit seniors' time budget decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (2): 70-86.
33. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2009. Planning an Audit of Financial Statements. International Standard on Auditing 300 (Revised). New York, NY: IFAC.
34. 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 (Supplement): 96-107.
35. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (2): 231-245.
36. Kock, N. 2005. Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 48 (2): 117-130.
37. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (2): 369-384.
38. Label, W., and A. Arens. 1984. Guidelines for more effective workpaper review. Practical Accountant 17: 49-54.
39. Lambert, T. A., J. F. Brazel, and K. L. Jones. 2009. Unintended consequences of accelerated filings: Are mandatory reductions in audit delay associated with reductions in earnings quality? Working paper, University of Massachusetts.
40. López, D. M., and G. F. Peters. 2009. The effect of workload compression on audit quality. Working paper, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
41. McDaniel, L. 1990. The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (2): 267-285.
42. McGee, S. 2005. CPA recruitment intensifies as accounting rules evolve. Wall Street Journal (March 22): B6.
43. Mock, T. J., and A. Wright. 1993. An exploratory study of auditors' evidential planning judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (2): 39-61.
44. Mueller, J. M., and J. C. Anderson. 2002. Decision aids for generating analytical review alternatives: The impact of goal framing and audit-risk level. Behavioral Research in Accounting 14: 157-177.
45. Murthy, U. S., and D. S. Kerr. 2004. Comparing audit team effectiveness via alternative modes of computer-mediated communication. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 23 (1): 141-152.
46. Nöteberg, A., T. L. Benford, and J. E. Hunton. 2003. Matching electronic communication media and audit tasks. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 4: 27-55.
47. Payne, E. A., R. J. Ramsay, and E. M. Bamber. 2010. The Effect of Alternative Types of Review on Auditors' Procedures and Performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (1): 207-220.
48. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2007. An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting that is Integrated with an Audit of Financial Statements. Auditing Standard No. 5. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
49. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2008. Report on the PCAOB's 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Inspections of Domestic Annually Inspected Firms. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
50. Ramsay, R. J. 1994. Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performance. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (1): 127-135.
51. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997. The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (5): 481-505.
52. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2002. Acceleration of Periodic Report Filing Dates and Disclosure Concerning Website Access to Reports. Release No. 33-8128. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
53. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2005. Revisions to Accelerated Deadlines for Filing Periodic Reports. Release No. 33-8644. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
54. Shumate, J. R., and R. C. Brooks. 2001. The effect of technology on auditing in government: A discussion of the paperless audit. The Journal of Government Financial Management 50 (2): 50-55.
55. Solomon, I., and C. Brown. 1992. Auditors'judgments and decisions under time pressure: An illustration and agenda for research. In Proceedings of the 1992 Deloitte & Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Audit Problems, edited by Srivastava, R. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.
56. Sutherland, V. J., and C. L. Cooper. 1988. Sources of work stress. In Occupational Stress: Issues and Developments in Research, edited by Hurrell, J., Jr., L. Murphy, S. Sauter, and C. L. Cooper, 3-40. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
57. 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.
58. Trotman, K. T. 1985. The review process and the accuracy of auditor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (2): 740-752.
59. Trotman, K. T., and P. W. Yetman. 1985. The effect of the review process on auditor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (1): 256-267.
60. U.S. House of Representatives. 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law 107-204 [H. R. 3763]. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
61. Wall Street Journal. 2005. To err is human, to restate financials, divine: Companies redo reports in record numbers, partly due to Sarbanes-Oxley. (January 20).
62. Webster, J., and L. K. Trevino. 1995. Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Academy of Management Journal 38 (6): 1544-1572.
63. Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 51-71.