IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/rafpps/raf-03-2017-0050.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit deficiency and auditor workload: evidence from PCAOB triennially inspected firms

Author

Listed:
  • C. Janie Chang
  • Yan Luo
  • Linying Zhou

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of workloads at public accounting firms on the likelihood of an audit deficiency being identified during a triennial inspection by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Design/methodology/approach - Using the human resource information disclosed in PCAOB inspection reports, this study constructs two firm-specific workload measures: the ratio of issuer clients to audit partners; and the ratio of issuer clients to professional staff. Firm-level audit deficiency is measured at three levels of severity: Do any of the audit engagements inspected by the PCAOB reveal an audit deficiency? Are any of the identified audit deficiencies directly related to the auditors’ failure to identify a departure from GAAP in the client’s financial statement? Are any of the identified audit deficiencies associated with a significant adjustment or restatement in the client’s subsequent period financial statements? This study uses logistic regression to examine the association between audit deficiency and the workload of public accounting firms. Findings - The empirical evidence suggests that the workload of public accounting firms is positively associated with the likelihood of a deficient audit, auditor’s failure to identify client’s GAAP departure and/or an audit deficiency resulting in a significant adjustment or even a restatement of the client’s financial statements in the subsequent period. Originality/value - This study is among the first to investigate the impact of firm workload on deficient audits.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Janie Chang & Yan Luo & Linying Zhou, 2017. "Audit deficiency and auditor workload: evidence from PCAOB triennially inspected firms," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(4), pages 478-496, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:rafpps:raf-03-2017-0050
    DOI: 10.1108/RAF-03-2017-0050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/RAF-03-2017-0050/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/RAF-03-2017-0050/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/RAF-03-2017-0050?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Chambers, Valerie A. & Reckers, Philip M.J. & Reinstein, Alan, 2020. "Drivers of juror's malpractice assessments in auditor litigation involving offshoring and overtime: Generation and a management Mindset," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Razana Juhaida Johari & Nordayana Sri Ridzoan & Arumega Zarefar, 2019. "The Influence of Work Overload, Time Pressure and Social Influence Pressure on Auditors¡¯ Job Performance," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 10(3), pages 88-106, May.
    3. Guillermina Tormo-Carbó & Zeena Mardawi & Elies Seguí-Mas, 2024. "Should I Stay or Should I Go? Auditor Ethical Conflict and Turnover Intention," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 194(2), pages 335-350, October.

    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:rafpps:raf-03-2017-0050. 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.

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