Changes in the importance of topics in auditing education: 2000‐2005

Purpose - The auditing educational process needs to be reevaluated in light of changing conditions so that it can adequately prepare students to function in the current environment. Utilizing two world‐wide surveys of auditing professors, the purpose of this paper is to extend prior research by identifying how auditing professors rank the importance of 41 topics typically included in an auditing course and, in addition, identify the significant changes in the topics' importance between the survey conducted in 2000 and repeated in 2005. The paper also aims to examine the focus, emphasis, prerequisites, required status, and level of university auditing courses. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on the results of two questionnaires. The professors surveyed were identified from Hasselback's 2000‐2001 and 2005‐2006Accounting Faculty Directories. The first questionnaire was mailed in November 2000 and the request to participate in the 2005 survey was e‐mailed in July 2005. Findings - The most important topics indicated from the 2005 survey are audit risk, understanding internal control structures, types and sources of evidence, standard audit reports, and financial statement assertions. The most important topics from the 2000 survey are types and sources of evidence, audit risk, standard audit report, materiality, and understanding internal control structures. Topics with the largest increases in importance between 2000 and 2005 are reports on internal control, fraud awareness, working papers, and auditing history. Topics with the largest decline in importance are assurance services, information systems auditing, computer auditing techniques, governmental/not‐for‐profit auditing standards, and legal liability of auditors. Other results show that the first auditing course is usually focused on external auditing only, is usually required, offered at the undergraduate level, and the most common prerequisite is intermediate financial accounting. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations include the possibility of non‐response bias, the type of survey instrument used between the two surveys, and the source used to draw the sample. Practical implications - For auditing classes to remain relevant and to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to become tomorrow's successful auditing practitioners, auditing professors must continue to reevaluate their auditing courses in light of the changing business environment, requirements placed on auditors by society, changes in professional auditing standards, current research in auditing, and practitioners' needs. Originality/value - The paper makes a contribution to the existing literature by adding comparability between two surveys at different points in time so that professors can identify the trends and importance of topics in auditing education.