回顾分析和证据专用性如何影响审计师的策划判断?

Ann G. Backof, R. Martin, Jane M. Thayer
{"title":"回顾分析和证据专用性如何影响审计师的策划判断?","authors":"Ann G. Backof, R. Martin, Jane M. Thayer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2770208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During a look-back analysis, auditors review prior-period evidence to understand estimation inaccuracies and assess the reliability of management’s estimation process. We find that evidence specificity moderates the relation between the consistency of an estimation inaccuracy with management’s incentives and auditors’ reliability assessments. The direction of an estimation inaccuracy has no effect on auditors’ reliability assessments when the prior-period evidence is less specific. When prior-period evidence is more specific, auditors report the highest (lowest) reliability assessments of management’s estimation process when an estimation inaccuracy is inconsistent (consistent) with management’s incentives. Auditors’ low reliability assessments in the more specific, consistent condition, however, do not translate to high risk assessments. Instead, specificity has a main effect on auditors’ risk assessments. A follow-up experiment reveals, though, an inverse relation between auditors’ reliability and risk assessments when auditors are provided procedures to address various levels of assessed misstatement risk.","PeriodicalId":8737,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Look-Back Analyses and Evidence Specificity Affect Auditors’ Planning Judgments?\",\"authors\":\"Ann G. Backof, R. Martin, Jane M. Thayer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2770208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During a look-back analysis, auditors review prior-period evidence to understand estimation inaccuracies and assess the reliability of management’s estimation process. We find that evidence specificity moderates the relation between the consistency of an estimation inaccuracy with management’s incentives and auditors’ reliability assessments. The direction of an estimation inaccuracy has no effect on auditors’ reliability assessments when the prior-period evidence is less specific. When prior-period evidence is more specific, auditors report the highest (lowest) reliability assessments of management’s estimation process when an estimation inaccuracy is inconsistent (consistent) with management’s incentives. Auditors’ low reliability assessments in the more specific, consistent condition, however, do not translate to high risk assessments. Instead, specificity has a main effect on auditors’ risk assessments. A follow-up experiment reveals, though, an inverse relation between auditors’ reliability and risk assessments when auditors are provided procedures to address various levels of assessed misstatement risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770208\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在回顾分析期间,审核员审查前期证据,以了解估计的不准确性,并评估管理层估计过程的可靠性。我们发现,证据特异性调节了估计不准确性与管理层激励的一致性和审计师可靠性评估之间的关系。当前期证据不明确时,估计不准确的方向对审计人员的可靠性评估没有影响。当前期证据更具体时,当估计不准确与管理层的激励不一致(一致)时,审计员报告管理层估计过程的最高(最低)可靠性评估。然而,审计师在更具体、一致的条件下的低可靠性评估并不转化为高风险评估。相反,专用性对审计人员的风险评估起主要作用。然而,一项后续实验表明,当审计师被提供程序来解决不同级别的评估错报风险时,审计师的可靠性与风险评估之间存在反比关系。
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
How Do Look-Back Analyses and Evidence Specificity Affect Auditors’ Planning Judgments?
During a look-back analysis, auditors review prior-period evidence to understand estimation inaccuracies and assess the reliability of management’s estimation process. We find that evidence specificity moderates the relation between the consistency of an estimation inaccuracy with management’s incentives and auditors’ reliability assessments. The direction of an estimation inaccuracy has no effect on auditors’ reliability assessments when the prior-period evidence is less specific. When prior-period evidence is more specific, auditors report the highest (lowest) reliability assessments of management’s estimation process when an estimation inaccuracy is inconsistent (consistent) with management’s incentives. Auditors’ low reliability assessments in the more specific, consistent condition, however, do not translate to high risk assessments. Instead, specificity has a main effect on auditors’ risk assessments. A follow-up experiment reveals, though, an inverse relation between auditors’ reliability and risk assessments when auditors are provided procedures to address various levels of assessed misstatement risk.
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
Don’t shoot yourself in the foot! A (real-effort task) experiment on income redistribution and voting. Causal Attribution, Benefits Sharing, and Earnings Management Sleep Debt and Information Processing in Financial Markets Game Changer: Can Modifications to Audit Firm Communication Improve Auditors’ Actions in Response to Heightened Fraud Risk? Retail Bond Investors and Credit Ratings
×
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