Audit partner evaluation of compensating controls: A focus on design effectiveness and extent of auditor testing

Auditing

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 175-187

  Gramling, Audrey A ^a   O'Donnell, Ed ^b   Vandervelde, Scott D ^c  

^a KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit partner judgments; Compensating controls; Halo effects; Internal control over financial reporting; Material weakness

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149349827     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2010.29.2.175     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006a. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. misctextStatement on Auditing Standards No. 107. New York, NY: AICPA/misctext.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006b. Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement. Statement on Auditing Standards No.109. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. Baltes, B. B., and C. P. Parker. 2000. Reducing the effects of performance expectations on behavioral ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82 (2): 237-267.
4. Bedard, J. C. 1989. An archival investigation of audit program-planning. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 9 (1): 57-71.
5. Bell, T., F. Marrs, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas. 1997. Auditing Organizations through a Strategic-Systems Lens: The KPMG Business Measurement Process. New Jersey: KPMG Peat Marwick LLP.
6. Gramling, A. A., and P. L. Walker. 2009. Management's Reporting on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. BNA/TM Accounting Policy and Practice Series. Arlington, VA: Tax Management, Inc., a subsidiary of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
7. Knechel, R., S. Salterio, and B. Ballou. 2006. Auditing: Assurance and Risk. 3rd edition. South-Western College Publishing.
8. Lopez, T, S. D. Vandervelde, and Y. Wu. 2009. Investor perceptions of an auditor's adverse internal control opinion. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 28 (3): 231-250.
9. Mock, T, and J. Turner. 1981. Internal Accounting Control Evaluation and Auditor Judgment. New York, NY: AICPA.
10. 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.
11. Mock, T. J., and A. Wright. 1999. Are audit program plans risk-adjusted? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (1): 55-74.
12. Murphy, K., R. Jako, and R. Anhalt. 1993. Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (2): 218-225.
13. Nisbett, R., and T. Wilson. 1977. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 250-256
14. O'Donnell, E., and J. Schultz. 2005. The halo effect in business-risk audits: Can strategic risk assessment bias auditor judgment about accounting details? The Accounting Review 80 (July): 921-40.
15. 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. Available at http://www.pcaob.org.
16. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2005. Report on the Initial Implementation of Auditing Standard No. 2. Available at http:// www.pcaob.org.
17. Roybark, H. M. 2008. Section 404 reporting and attestation reports: A descriptive analysis of attestation reports issued for ICFR during the first two years of Section 404 reporting. The ICFAI University Journal of Audit Practice 5 (3): 7-34.
18. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2007. Commission Guidance Regarding Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Release Nos. 33-8810, 34-55929, FR-77; File No. S7-24-06. Available at http:// www.sec.gov/spotlight/soxcomp.htm.
19. Vandervelde, S. D. 2006. The importance of account relations when responding to interim audit testing results. Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (3): 789-821.
20. Wright, A., and J. C. Bedard. 2000. Decision processes in audit evidential planning: A multistage investigation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (1): 123-143.