如何简单地改变语言和打勾可以减少审计程序的打勾

IF 2.7 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory Pub Date : 2021-03-13 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3720928
Jessica L. Buchanan, M. D. Piercey
{"title":"如何简单地改变语言和打勾可以减少审计程序的打勾","authors":"Jessica L. Buchanan, M. D. Piercey","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3720928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior research shows that ghost ticking, or documenting audit work not actually performed, is a persistent threat to audit quality. We examine whether requiring self-references in audit workpapers (i.e., \"I\" performed the test) can effectively curtail ghost ticking, compared to other workpaper language that can be used in practice. We also design and test an alternative to tick marks (symbol-based notation commonly used in workpapers to describe the results of audit procedures), in which auditors select the same description of the procedure performed, but from a pre-populated drop-down list. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that using both self-references and descriptions (as opposed to tick marks) jointly reduces ghost ticking, compared to when only one (or neither) of these are used. Overall, we demonstrate how two simple and easily implementable changes to language and tick marks can significantly curtail ghost ticking and therefore reduce its threat to audit quality.","PeriodicalId":48142,"journal":{"name":"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Simple Changes to Language and Tick Marks Can Curtail the Ghost Ticking of Audit Procedures\",\"authors\":\"Jessica L. Buchanan, M. D. Piercey\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3720928\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prior research shows that ghost ticking, or documenting audit work not actually performed, is a persistent threat to audit quality. We examine whether requiring self-references in audit workpapers (i.e., \\\"I\\\" performed the test) can effectively curtail ghost ticking, compared to other workpaper language that can be used in practice. We also design and test an alternative to tick marks (symbol-based notation commonly used in workpapers to describe the results of audit procedures), in which auditors select the same description of the procedure performed, but from a pre-populated drop-down list. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that using both self-references and descriptions (as opposed to tick marks) jointly reduces ghost ticking, compared to when only one (or neither) of these are used. Overall, we demonstrate how two simple and easily implementable changes to language and tick marks can significantly curtail ghost ticking and therefore reduce its threat to audit quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3720928\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3720928","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

先前的研究表明,幽灵滴答声,或没有实际执行的审计工作记录,是对审计质量的持续威胁。我们研究了在审计工作文件中要求自我引用(即,“我”执行了测试)是否可以有效地减少幽灵滴答,与其他可以在实践中使用的工作文件语言相比。我们还设计并测试了一种替代打勾标记的方法(通常在工作文件中用于描述审计过程结果的基于符号的表示法),在这种方法中,审计员可以从预填充的下拉列表中选择所执行过程的相同描述。与我们的假设一致,我们发现,与只使用其中一种(或两者都不使用)相比,同时使用自我引用和描述(而不是打勾标记)可以减少幽灵滴答声。总之,我们展示了对语言和打勾标记进行的两个简单且易于实现的更改如何能够显著减少“鬼打勾”,从而降低其对审计质量的威胁。
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 Simple Changes to Language and Tick Marks Can Curtail the Ghost Ticking of Audit Procedures
Prior research shows that ghost ticking, or documenting audit work not actually performed, is a persistent threat to audit quality. We examine whether requiring self-references in audit workpapers (i.e., "I" performed the test) can effectively curtail ghost ticking, compared to other workpaper language that can be used in practice. We also design and test an alternative to tick marks (symbol-based notation commonly used in workpapers to describe the results of audit procedures), in which auditors select the same description of the procedure performed, but from a pre-populated drop-down list. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that using both self-references and descriptions (as opposed to tick marks) jointly reduces ghost ticking, compared to when only one (or neither) of these are used. Overall, we demonstrate how two simple and easily implementable changes to language and tick marks can significantly curtail ghost ticking and therefore reduce its threat to audit quality.
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.70%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: AUDITING contains technical articles as well as news and reports on current activities of the association.
期刊最新文献
Attracting the Next Generation of Accountants: The Joint Impact of Sustainability Emphasis and Social Value Orientation on Accounting Career Perceptions Cataloging the Marketplace of Assurance Services Informativeness of Key Audit Matters: Evidence from China The Value of Auditor Verification Amid Economic Uncertainty: International Evidence from Small Businesses Covers and Front Matter
×
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