审计过程中的结构与判断:对Kinney分类法的检验

Malcolm Smith, B. Fiedler, J. Kestel, Bruce Brown
{"title":"审计过程中的结构与判断:对Kinney分类法的检验","authors":"Malcolm Smith, B. Fiedler, J. Kestel, Bruce Brown","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.219308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sullivan suggests that the alternative audit approaches adopted by accounting firms be expressed in terms of “structure” and “judgement”, with a division provided by the degree to which auditor judgement is replaced by structured quantitative algorithms. Cushing and Loebbecke attempt to operationalise this division by examining the guidance provided to practising auditors by their firms. Kinne extends this study by classifying accounting firms as “structured”, “intermediate” or “unstructured” in terms of their audit methodologies. Provides a test of Kinney’s classification by examining the tolerance of accounting firms to accounting policy choices which have an income effect in their clients’ financial statements. Argues that those firms with a structured audit approach will manage audit risk through a greater reliance on mechanistic procedures, resulting in a greater tolerance of income manipulation. The results are confirmatory for the period under study, but evidence is provided to suggest that audit firms have subsequently become less diversified in their approach.","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structure Versus Judgement in the Audit Process: A Test of Kinney's Classification\",\"authors\":\"Malcolm Smith, B. Fiedler, J. Kestel, Bruce Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.219308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sullivan suggests that the alternative audit approaches adopted by accounting firms be expressed in terms of “structure” and “judgement”, with a division provided by the degree to which auditor judgement is replaced by structured quantitative algorithms. Cushing and Loebbecke attempt to operationalise this division by examining the guidance provided to practising auditors by their firms. Kinne extends this study by classifying accounting firms as “structured”, “intermediate” or “unstructured” in terms of their audit methodologies. Provides a test of Kinney’s classification by examining the tolerance of accounting firms to accounting policy choices which have an income effect in their clients’ financial statements. Argues that those firms with a structured audit approach will manage audit risk through a greater reliance on mechanistic procedures, resulting in a greater tolerance of income manipulation. The results are confirmatory for the period under study, but evidence is provided to suggest that audit firms have subsequently become less diversified in their approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":180033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Accounting Abstracts\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Accounting Abstracts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.219308\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.219308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

Sullivan建议会计师事务所采用的替代审计方法可以用“结构”和“判断”来表示,并根据审计师判断被结构化定量算法取代的程度来划分。库欣和勒布贝克试图通过审查其公司向执业审计师提供的指导来运作这一部门。Kinne扩展了这项研究,根据审计方法将会计师事务所分为“结构化”、“中间”或“非结构化”。通过检查会计师事务所对其客户财务报表中有收入影响的会计政策选择的容忍度,提供了对金尼分类的检验。认为那些采用结构化审计方法的公司将通过更多地依赖机械程序来管理审计风险,从而更能容忍收入操纵。研究期间的结果是证实性的,但有证据表明审计公司后来在方法上变得不那么多样化了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Structure Versus Judgement in the Audit Process: A Test of Kinney's Classification
Sullivan suggests that the alternative audit approaches adopted by accounting firms be expressed in terms of “structure” and “judgement”, with a division provided by the degree to which auditor judgement is replaced by structured quantitative algorithms. Cushing and Loebbecke attempt to operationalise this division by examining the guidance provided to practising auditors by their firms. Kinne extends this study by classifying accounting firms as “structured”, “intermediate” or “unstructured” in terms of their audit methodologies. Provides a test of Kinney’s classification by examining the tolerance of accounting firms to accounting policy choices which have an income effect in their clients’ financial statements. Argues that those firms with a structured audit approach will manage audit risk through a greater reliance on mechanistic procedures, resulting in a greater tolerance of income manipulation. The results are confirmatory for the period under study, but evidence is provided to suggest that audit firms have subsequently become less diversified in their approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Managerial Risk-Taking Incentives and Executive Stock Option Repricing: A Study of Us Casino Executives Determinants of Revenue Reporting Practices for Internet Firms Differences in Commercial Database Reported Earnings: Implications for Empirical Research The Association between Stock/Compensation Mix and Earnings Usefulness Evidence from Auditors About Managers' and Auditors' Earnings-Management Decisions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1