Internal control assessment and interference effects

Behavioral Research in Accounting

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 73-90

  Morrill, Janet B ^a   Morrill, Cameron K J ^a   Kopp, Lori S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Auditor judgment; Interference; Internal control evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857490477     PISSN: 10504753     EISSN: 15588009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/bria-10074     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Anderson, J. C., S. E. Kaplan, and P. M. J. Reckers. 1992. The effects of output interference on analytical procedures judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11 (2): 1-13.
2. Bierstaker, J. L. 2003. Auditor recall and evaluation of internal control information: Does task-specific knowledge mitigate part-list interference? Managerial Auditing Journal 18 (1/2): 90-100.
3. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 2007. Practice Engagement Manual. Toronto, Canada: CICA.
4. Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA). 2007. Public Practice Manual. Vancouver, Canada: CGA Association of Canada.
5. Church, B., and A. Schneider. 1993. Auditors' generation of diagnostic hypotheses in response to a superior's suggestion: Interference effects. Contemporary Accounting Research 10: 333-350.
6. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 1994. Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. New York, NY: COSO.
7. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2006. Internal Control over Financial Reporting-Guidance for Smaller Public Companies. New York, NY: COSO.
8. Emby, C. 1995. Framing and presentation mode effects in professional judgment: Auditors' internal control judgments and substantive testing decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (Supplement): 102-115.
9. Frederick, D. M. 1991. Auditors' representation and retrieval of internal control knowledge. The Accounting Review 66 (April): 240-258.
10. Heiman-Hoffman, V., D. Moser, and J. Joseph. 1995. The impact of an auditor's initial hypothesis on subsequent performance at identifying actual errors. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (2): 763-779.
11. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2007. Handbook of International Auditing Assurance and Ethics Pronouncements. New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants.
12. Kopp, L. S., and J. L. Bierstaker. 2006. Auditors' memory of internal control information: The effect of documentation preparation versus review. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research 9: 27-50.
13. Libby, R., and D. M. Frederick. 1990. Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (2): 348-367.
14. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2007. Auditing Standard No 5. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
15. Roybark, H. M. 2006. An Analysis of Audit Deficiencies Based on PCAOB Inspection Reports Issued During 2005. Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy 6 (2): 125-154.
16. Slamecka, N. J. 1968. An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology 76: 504-513.
17. Tubbs, R. M. 1992. The effect of experience on the auditor's organization and amount of knowledge. The Accounting Review 67 (October): 783-801.