Author
Listed:
- Thomas G. Calderon
- Emeka Ofobike
Abstract
Purpose - Prior studies include auditor‐initiated (AI) and client‐initiated (CI) auditor changes together and conduct research as though they were the same. This paper aims to hypothesize that AI and CI changes are driven by different interests and to examine factors that could explain and predict them. Design/methodology/approach - Based on the prior literature, the authors classified factors into AI and CI categories a priori, and then developed hypotheses that aligned with the classification. The data source is AuditAnalytics. Findings - The univariate and multivariate analyses support the hypothesis that CI and AI separations are driven by different interests. The empirically determined prediction model (a classification and regression trees (CART)‐generated six‐step process), which performed better than other multivariate models, classifies AI and CI auditor separations with an accuracy rate of 68 percent. Research limitations/implications - The findings suggest that future research should incorporate the differences between AI and CI separations into their studies. One intriguing issue is the lack of importance of the variable audit fees to total fees in the CART model. Though statistically significant in some of the multivariate analyses, the variable is not important in the CART model. This issue merits further investigation as it could provide important insight into dependency issues that are presumed by current audit regulation. Practical implications - The paper has important implications for practice. It offers insight into factors that drive CI and AI auditor separations. The CART model may serve as a decision aid for both auditors and regulators as they contemplate and evaluate auditor change decisions. Originality/value - The paper provides original insight into AI and CI auditor changes when considered as distinct issues that are driven by different interests.
Suggested Citation
Thomas G. Calderon & Emeka Ofobike, 2008.
"Determinants of client‐initiated and auditor‐initiated auditor changes,"
Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(1), pages 4-25, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:majpps:02686900810838146
DOI: 10.1108/02686900810838146
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:eme:majpps:02686900810838146. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.