Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 19-34 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | British Accounting Review |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2003 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Analytical review
- Auditor judgement
- Self-insight
Cite this
}
Auditor analytical review judgement : a performance evaluation. / LIN, Zhenpin, Kenny; FRASER, Ian A. M.; HATHERLY, David J.
In: British Accounting Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, 01.03.2003, p. 19-34.Research output: Journal Publications › Journal Article (refereed)
TY - JOUR
T1 - Auditor analytical review judgement : a performance evaluation
AU - LIN, Zhenpin, Kenny
AU - FRASER, Ian A. M.
AU - HATHERLY, David J.
PY - 2003/3/1
Y1 - 2003/3/1
N2 - This study provides experimental evidence on several important measures for evaluating the performance of auditor judgement in an analytical review (AR) context. The results of the study suggest that UK auditors demonstrated only moderate level of judgement performance, as measured by consensus, consistency, and self-insight. Contrary to what might be expected, the study did not find that auditors from larger firms exhibited relatively greater consensus. In order to identify experience effects the paper employs the 'expertise paradigm' Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (1993) 425]. Significant experience effects were identified implying that auditor judgement performance might be improved if less straightforward judgements were to be made by more senior auditors than is currently the case. The results of the study may have implications for both the cost structures and staffing policies of audit firms.
AB - This study provides experimental evidence on several important measures for evaluating the performance of auditor judgement in an analytical review (AR) context. The results of the study suggest that UK auditors demonstrated only moderate level of judgement performance, as measured by consensus, consistency, and self-insight. Contrary to what might be expected, the study did not find that auditors from larger firms exhibited relatively greater consensus. In order to identify experience effects the paper employs the 'expertise paradigm' Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (1993) 425]. Significant experience effects were identified implying that auditor judgement performance might be improved if less straightforward judgements were to be made by more senior auditors than is currently the case. The results of the study may have implications for both the cost structures and staffing policies of audit firms.
KW - Analytical review
KW - Auditor judgement
KW - Self-insight
UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/1967
U2 - 10.1016/S0890-8389(02)00107-5
DO - 10.1016/S0890-8389(02)00107-5
M3 - Journal Article (refereed)
VL - 35
SP - 19
EP - 34
JO - British Accounting Review
JF - British Accounting Review
SN - 0890-8389
IS - 1
ER -