An exploration of differences in auditors' and users' perceptions of key terms used to define auditors' responsibilities
Audit policy has used numerous terms to define auditors' responsibilities over the past several decades. This study explores the structural relationship among key terms used to define auditors' responsibilities including 'misstatement' and embedded terms such as error, irregularity and fraud. Several empirical modelling techniques are used to investigate auditors' and investors' perceptions of the intended meanings of these terms and to measure consensus among such perceptions. Several important differences are detected among auditors as well as between auditors and investors. We conclude that care should be taken by auditing standard setters in issuing standards and preparing guidance to support standards related to the intended meaning and usage of the term misstatement, and its embedded component terms.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 6 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=41|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijaape:v:6:y:2010:i:1:p:80-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Graham Langley)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.