An experimental study of auditor analytical review judgements

Zhenpin, Kenny LIN, Ian A. M. FRASER, David J. HATHERLY

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper provides evidence as to how five factors highlighted in the current UK auditing standard are taken into account by auditors in analytical review (AR) judgements. While the relative importance of particular cues was generally found to be consistent with the standard, certain factors were taken into account only to a marginal extent. Little evidence of configural cue usage was identified. The study also provides evidence of a tendency towards conservatism in the way auditors approach AR. The results suggest both that the potential to substitute AR for other substantive procedures may be realised only imperfectly and that the issue of configural reasoning should be addressed in the auditing standard.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)821-857
Number of pages37
JournalJournal of Business Finance and Accounting
Volume27
Issue number7-8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2000

Fingerprint

Experimental study
Auditors
Factors
Auditing standards
Relative importance
Conservatism
Substitute

Keywords

  • analytical review; auditor analytical review judgement; auditing standards; configural information processing; conversation

Cite this

LIN, Zhenpin, Kenny ; FRASER, Ian A. M. ; HATHERLY, David J. / An experimental study of auditor analytical review judgements. In: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. 2000 ; Vol. 27, No. 7-8. pp. 821-857.
@article{113c2dbfb5a54a67ad81b4f0e0e44d66,
title = "An experimental study of auditor analytical review judgements",
abstract = "This paper provides evidence as to how five factors highlighted in the current UK auditing standard are taken into account by auditors in analytical review (AR) judgements. While the relative importance of particular cues was generally found to be consistent with the standard, certain factors were taken into account only to a marginal extent. Little evidence of configural cue usage was identified. The study also provides evidence of a tendency towards conservatism in the way auditors approach AR. The results suggest both that the potential to substitute AR for other substantive procedures may be realised only imperfectly and that the issue of configural reasoning should be addressed in the auditing standard.",
keywords = "analytical review; auditor analytical review judgement; auditing standards; configural information processing; conversation",
author = "LIN, {Zhenpin, Kenny} and FRASER, {Ian A. M.} and HATHERLY, {David J.}",
year = "2000",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1468-5957.00336",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "821--857",
journal = "Journal of Business Finance and Accounting",
issn = "0306-686X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "7-8",

}

An experimental study of auditor analytical review judgements. / LIN, Zhenpin, Kenny; FRASER, Ian A. M.; HATHERLY, David J.

In: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 27, No. 7-8, 01.09.2000, p. 821-857.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

TY - JOUR

T1 - An experimental study of auditor analytical review judgements

AU - LIN, Zhenpin, Kenny

AU - FRASER, Ian A. M.

AU - HATHERLY, David J.

PY - 2000/9/1

Y1 - 2000/9/1

N2 - This paper provides evidence as to how five factors highlighted in the current UK auditing standard are taken into account by auditors in analytical review (AR) judgements. While the relative importance of particular cues was generally found to be consistent with the standard, certain factors were taken into account only to a marginal extent. Little evidence of configural cue usage was identified. The study also provides evidence of a tendency towards conservatism in the way auditors approach AR. The results suggest both that the potential to substitute AR for other substantive procedures may be realised only imperfectly and that the issue of configural reasoning should be addressed in the auditing standard.

AB - This paper provides evidence as to how five factors highlighted in the current UK auditing standard are taken into account by auditors in analytical review (AR) judgements. While the relative importance of particular cues was generally found to be consistent with the standard, certain factors were taken into account only to a marginal extent. Little evidence of configural cue usage was identified. The study also provides evidence of a tendency towards conservatism in the way auditors approach AR. The results suggest both that the potential to substitute AR for other substantive procedures may be realised only imperfectly and that the issue of configural reasoning should be addressed in the auditing standard.

KW - analytical review; auditor analytical review judgement; auditing standards; configural information processing; conversation

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2683

U2 - 10.1111/1468-5957.00336

DO - 10.1111/1468-5957.00336

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 27

SP - 821

EP - 857

JO - Journal of Business Finance and Accounting

JF - Journal of Business Finance and Accounting

SN - 0306-686X

IS - 7-8

ER -