IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v35y2010i2p238-251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating business risk into auditor judgment about the risk of material misstatement: The influence of a strategic-systems-audit approach

Author

Listed:
  • Schultz Jr., Joseph J.
  • Bierstaker, James Lloyd
  • O'Donnell, Ed

Abstract

Auditing standards direct auditors to consider business risk and other risk factors when they evaluate the overall risk of material misstatement during the planning phase of an audit. Large audit firms generally use either a strategic-systems approach (SSA) or a transaction-focused approach (TFA) to evaluate misstatement risk. This study used data from a laboratory experiment to examine whether (1) being trained to use either SSA or TFA and (2) analyzing information organized in an SSA or TFA format influence the extent to which auditors integrate knowledge of business risk into their judgment about the likelihood of financial misstatement. Only auditors trained to use SSA who analyzed information provided in an SSA format effectively integrated business risk assessments with their assessment of the risk of material misstatement.

Suggested Citation

  • Schultz Jr., Joseph J. & Bierstaker, James Lloyd & O'Donnell, Ed, 2010. "Integrating business risk into auditor judgment about the risk of material misstatement: The influence of a strategic-systems-audit approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 238-251, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:35:y:2010:i:2:p:238-251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361-3682(09)00066-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    2. Zimbelman, MF, 1997. "The effects of SAS no. 82 on auditors' attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 75-97.
    3. Knechel, W. Robert, 2007. "The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 383-408.
    4. Robson, Keith & Humphrey, Christopher & Khalifa, Rihab & Jones, Julian, 2007. "Transforming audit technologies: Business risk audit methodologies and the audit field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 409-438.
    5. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    6. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    7. Amy K. Choy & Ronald R. King, 2005. "An Experimental Investigation of Approaches to Audit Decision Making: An Evaluation Using Systems†Mediated Mental Models," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 311-350, June.
    8. Erickson, M & Mayhew, BW & Felix, WL, 2000. "Why do audits fail? Evidence from Lincoln Savings and Loan," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 165-194.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    2. Arnold, Vicky & Collier, Philip A. & Leech, Stewart A. & Rose, Jacob M. & Sutton, Steve G., 2023. "Can knowledge based systems be designed to counteract deskilling effects?," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Rahimian, Firoozeh & Bajaj, Akhilesh & Bradley, Wray, 2016. "Estimation of deficiency risk and prioritization of information security controls: A data-centric approach," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 38-64.
    4. Joseph F. Brazel & Lorenzo Lucianetti & Tammie J. Schaefer, 2021. "Reporting Concerns About Earnings Quality: An Examination of Corporate Managers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 435-457, July.
    5. Marie Caussimont & David Carassus, 2015. "L’audit financier en contexte territorial : vers un audit de performance de la gestion locale ?," Post-Print hal-02141946, HAL.
    6. Neu, Dean & Everett, Jeff & Rahaman, Abu Shiraz, 2015. "Preventing corruption within government procurement: Constructing the disciplined and ethical subject," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 49-61.
    7. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.
    2. Knechel, W. Robert & Salterio, Steven E. & Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia, 2010. "The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 316-333, April.
    3. Wally Smieliauskas, 2008. "A Framework for Identifying (and Avoiding) Fraudulent Financial Reporting," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 189-226, August.
    4. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    5. Power, Michael, 2013. "The apparatus of fraud risk," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 525-543.
    6. Bills, Kenneth L. & Cobabe, Matthew & Pittman, Jeffrey & Stein, Sarah E., 2020. "To share or not to share: The importance of peer firm similarity to auditor choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    7. Bruynseels, Liesbeth & Willekens, Marleen, 2012. "The effect of strategic and operating turnaround initiatives on audit reporting for distressed companies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 223-241.
    8. Chen, Qiu & Kelly, Khim & Salterio, Steven E., 2012. "Do changes in audit actions and attitudes consistent with increased auditor scepticism deter aggressive earnings management? An experimental investigation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 95-115.
    9. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    10. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    11. Daniel VILSANOIU & Mihaela SERBAN, 2010. "Changing Methodologies in Financial Audit and Their Impact on Information Systems Audit," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 59-65.
    12. Holm, Claus & Zaman, Mahbub, 2012. "Regulating audit quality: Restoring trust and legitimacy," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 51-61.
    13. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    14. Thornock, Todd A., 2016. "How the timing of performance feedback impacts individual performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-11.
    15. Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    16. Joseph F. Brazel & Keith L. Jones & Mark F. Zimbelman, 2009. "Using Nonfinancial Measures to Assess Fraud Risk," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(5), pages 1135-1166, December.
    17. Wally Smieliauskas, 2007. "What's Wrong with the Current Audit Risk Model?/QU'EST‐CE QUI NE VA PAS DANS LE MODÈLE ACTUEL DE RISQUE DE VÉRIFICATION?," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 343-367, November.
    18. Ardelean Alexandra, 2013. "Defining the Public Interest in Relation to the Accountancy Profession: Some Perspectives," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 60(2), pages 1-17, December.
    19. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    20. Flint, Christine & Fraser, Ian A.M. & Hatherly, David J., 2008. "Business risk auditing: A regressive evolution?—A research note," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 143-147.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:35:y:2010:i:2:p:238-251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.