IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joacli/v39y2017icp23-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of specialists on audit engagements: A research synthesis and directions for future research

Author

Listed:
  • Hux, Candice T.

Abstract

This synthesis covers academic research on the use of valuation, tax, information technology (IT), and forensic specialists on audit engagements. The importance and role of specialists on audit engagements have recently increased, and specialist use has garnered significant attention from regulators and academics. Given the PCAOB’s (2017b) recent proposal to revise auditing standards regarding specialists’ involvement, it is important to review the specialist literature as a whole. By integrating research across these four domains, I identify commonalities and differences related to: (1) factors associated with the use of specialists on audit engagements (including the nature, timing, and extent of use); (2) factors impacting auditors’ interactions with specialists (including specialists contracted by the auditor or management); and (3) outcomes associated with the use of specialists. This integrated analysis of the specialist literatures shows variation in the use of specialists, and various factors affecting both if and how they are involved and whether auditors use specialists internal or external to the audit firm. Additionally, research has sometimes (but not always) linked specialist involvement to higher audit quality. The commonalities and areas of variation identified are informative to audit research and practice, particularly as regulators and audit firms look to improve the quality of audits using specialists. Throughout the synthesis, I also provide a number of directions for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Hux, Candice T., 2017. "Use of specialists on audit engagements: A research synthesis and directions for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 23-51.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joacli:v:39:y:2017:i:c:p:23-51
    DOI: 10.1016/j.acclit.2017.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0737460716300441
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.acclit.2017.07.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Axelsen, Micheal & Green, Peter & Ridley, Gail, 2017. "Explaining the information systems auditor role in the public sector financial audit," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 15-31.
    2. Hasseldine, John & Holland, Kevin & van der Rijt, Pernill, 2011. "The market for corporate tax knowledge," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 39-52.
    3. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    4. Vicky Arnold & Philip A. Collier & Stewart A. Leech & Steve G. Sutton, 2004. "Impact of intelligent decision aids on expert and novice decision‐makers’ judgments," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 44(1), pages 1-26, March.
    5. Stephen K. Asare & Arnold M. Wright, 2004. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Risk Assessment and Program Planning Tools in a Fraud Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 325-352, June.
    6. Joseph F. Brazel & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2007. "An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1059-1083, December.
    7. Brant E. Christensen & Steven M. Glover & Thomas C. Omer & Marjorie K. Shelley, 2016. "Understanding Audit Quality: Insights from Audit Professionals and Investors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1648-1684, December.
    8. Smith-Lacroix, Jean-Hubert & Durocher, Sylvain & Gendron, Yves, 2012. "The erosion of jurisdiction: Auditing in a market value accounting regime," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 36-53.
    9. W. Robert Knechel & Justin Leiby, 2016. "If You Want My Advice: Status Motives and Audit Consultations About Accounting Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1331-1364, December.
    10. Robert Bloomfield & Mark W. Nelson & Eugene Soltes, 2016. "Gathering Data for Archival, Field, Survey, and Experimental Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 341-395, May.
    11. Kate M. Andrews & Brian L. Delahaye, 2000. "Influences On Knowledge processes In Organizational Learning: The Psychosocial Filter," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 797-810, September.
    12. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous, 2015. "Audits of Complex Estimates as Verification of Management Numbers: How Institutional Pressures Shape Practice," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 833-863, September.
    13. Stoel, Dale & Havelka, Douglas & Merhout, Jeffrey W., 2012. "An analysis of attributes that impact information technology audit quality: A study of IT and financial audit practitioners," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 60-79.
    14. Hanes, Denise R., 2013. "Geographically distributed audit work: Theoretical considerations and future directions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-29.
    15. William R. Kinney & Zoe‐Vonna Palmrose & Susan Scholz, 2004. "Auditor Independence, Non‐Audit Services, and Restatements: Was the U.S. Government Right?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 561-588, June.
    16. Weisner, Martin M. & Sutton, Steve G., 2015. "When the world isn't always flat: The impact of psychological distance on auditors' reliance on specialists," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 23-41.
    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. Emily E. Griffith, 2020. "Auditors, Specialists, and Professional Jurisdiction in Audits of Fair Values†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 245-276, March.
    2. Pinprapa Sangchan & Ahsan Habib & Haiyan Jiang & Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan, 2020. "Fair Value Exposure, Changes in Fair Value and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Australian Real Estate Industry," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 30(2), pages 123-143, June.

    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. Tim D. Bauer & Sean M. Hillison & Mark E. Peecher & Bradley Pomeroy, 2020. "Revising Audit Plans to Address Fraud Risk: A Case of “Do as I Advise, Not as I Do”?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2558-2589, December.
    2. Hoffman, Benjamin W. & Sellers, R. Drew & Skomra, Justyna, 2018. "The impact of client information technology capability on audit pricing," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 59-75.
    3. Axelsen, Micheal & Green, Peter & Ridley, Gail, 2017. "Explaining the information systems auditor role in the public sector financial audit," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 15-31.
    4. Huh, Bong Gu & Lee, Sunhwa & Kim, Wonsin, 2021. "The impact of the input level of information system audit on the audit quality: Korean evidence," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    6. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    7. Shivaram Rajgopal & Suraj Srinivasan & Xin Zheng, 2021. "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 559-619, June.
    8. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    9. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    10. Beardsley, Erik L. & Imdieke, Andrew J. & Omer, Thomas C., 2021. "The distraction effect of non-audit services on audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2).
    11. Paul J. Coram & Noel Harding & David C. Hay & Jahanzeb Khan & Ashna Prasad, 2021. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on Proposed International Standard on Auditing 600 (ED 600)," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5879-5890, December.
    12. Bratten, Brian & Jennings, Ross & Schwab, Casey M., 2016. "The accuracy of disclosures for complex estimates: Evidence from reported stock option fair values," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 32-49.
    13. Mălăescu, Irina & Sutton, Steve G., 2015. "The effects of decision aid structural restrictiveness on cognitive load, perceived usefulness, and reuse intentions," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 16-36.
    14. Stéphane Lhuillery & Marion Tellechea & Stéphanie Thiery, 2021. "Open innovation in managerial innovation: the case of internal audit," Working Papers of BETA 2021-19, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    15. Emily E. Griffith, 2020. "Auditors, Specialists, and Professional Jurisdiction in Audits of Fair Values†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 245-276, March.
    16. Johnson, Elizabeth & Reichelt, Kenneth J. & Soileau, Jared S., 2018. "No news is bad news: Do PCAOB part II reports have an effect on annually inspected firms’ audit fees and audit quality?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 106-126.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    20. Thomas C. Omer & shelley@unl.edu & Frances M. Tice, 2020. "Do Director Networks Matter for Financial Reporting Quality? Evidence from Audit Committee Connectedness and Restatements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3361-3388, August.

    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:joacli:v:39:y:2017:i:c:p:23-51. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-accounting-literature .

    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.