不管是好是坏:根据第7号审计准则对审计师的做法进行研究

Denise Dickins , Rebecca Fay , Brian Daugherty
{"title":"不管是好是坏:根据第7号审计准则对审计师的做法进行研究","authors":"Denise Dickins ,&nbsp;Rebecca Fay ,&nbsp;Brian Daugherty","doi":"10.1016/j.racreg.2015.09.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The PCAOB's Auditing Standard No. 7 (AS No. 7) revised guidance for Engagement Quality Reviews (EQRs). To better understand the impact of resulting changes in practice, if any, that have occurred in the nature, extent, and timing of the EQR process, and the impact of such changes on audit quality, we surveyed practicing audit partners familiar with EQRs. Results indicate that AS No. 7 changed the nature of EQRs by impacting the role and approach of the EQ Reviewer. It impacted the extent of procedures performed by the EQ Reviewer and altered communications between the EQ Reviewer and most engagement team members, but it had little impact on the timing of EQRs. Collectively, results suggest AS No. 7 changed EQRs, but such changes may not have improved audit quality. These findings provide insight to the continuing conclusion of the PCAOB that many EQ Reviewers do not fulfill their role of monitoring audit quality, and are also suggestive of opportunities to improve the EQR process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101074,"journal":{"name":"Research in Accounting Regulation","volume":"27 2","pages":"Pages 174-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.09.008","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"For better or worse: A study of auditors' practices under Auditing Standard No. 7\",\"authors\":\"Denise Dickins ,&nbsp;Rebecca Fay ,&nbsp;Brian Daugherty\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.racreg.2015.09.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The PCAOB's Auditing Standard No. 7 (AS No. 7) revised guidance for Engagement Quality Reviews (EQRs). To better understand the impact of resulting changes in practice, if any, that have occurred in the nature, extent, and timing of the EQR process, and the impact of such changes on audit quality, we surveyed practicing audit partners familiar with EQRs. Results indicate that AS No. 7 changed the nature of EQRs by impacting the role and approach of the EQ Reviewer. It impacted the extent of procedures performed by the EQ Reviewer and altered communications between the EQ Reviewer and most engagement team members, but it had little impact on the timing of EQRs. Collectively, results suggest AS No. 7 changed EQRs, but such changes may not have improved audit quality. These findings provide insight to the continuing conclusion of the PCAOB that many EQ Reviewers do not fulfill their role of monitoring audit quality, and are also suggestive of opportunities to improve the EQR process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Accounting Regulation\",\"volume\":\"27 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 174-186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.09.008\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Accounting Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045715000375\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Accounting Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045715000375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

PCAOB的审计准则第7号(AS No 7)修订了审计业务质量复核(EQRs)指南。为了更好地理解在EQR过程的性质、程度和时间方面发生的实践变化的影响,以及这些变化对审计质量的影响,我们调查了熟悉EQR的执业审计合伙人。结果表明,AS No. 7通过影响情商审查员的角色和方法改变了情商评价的性质。它影响了情商审查员执行的程序的范围,并改变了情商审查员与大多数参与团队成员之间的沟通,但它对情商评估的时间影响不大。总的来说,结果表明AS No. 7改变了EQRs,但这种改变可能没有提高审计质量。这些发现为PCAOB的持续结论提供了洞见,即许多情商审核员没有履行监督审计质量的职责,同时也暗示了改进EQR流程的机会。
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
For better or worse: A study of auditors' practices under Auditing Standard No. 7

The PCAOB's Auditing Standard No. 7 (AS No. 7) revised guidance for Engagement Quality Reviews (EQRs). To better understand the impact of resulting changes in practice, if any, that have occurred in the nature, extent, and timing of the EQR process, and the impact of such changes on audit quality, we surveyed practicing audit partners familiar with EQRs. Results indicate that AS No. 7 changed the nature of EQRs by impacting the role and approach of the EQ Reviewer. It impacted the extent of procedures performed by the EQ Reviewer and altered communications between the EQ Reviewer and most engagement team members, but it had little impact on the timing of EQRs. Collectively, results suggest AS No. 7 changed EQRs, but such changes may not have improved audit quality. These findings provide insight to the continuing conclusion of the PCAOB that many EQ Reviewers do not fulfill their role of monitoring audit quality, and are also suggestive of opportunities to improve the EQR process.

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
Editorial Board Value relevance of customer-related intangible assets Transparency and the audit industry? Not in the U.S. Evidence on audit production costs, profitability and partner compensation from the U.K. Financial statement comparability and segment disclosure The mitigation of high-growth-related accounting distortions after sarbanes-oxley
×
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