Comparing Active Auditors viewpoints in Public and Private Sector over Determining Basic Materiality Levels in Auditing
Materiality is a threshold quality in accounting which has priority over other qualitative characteristics of financial information. In other word, financial information are important in decision-making only when they are important with respect to this to definition, omission or altering these significant information can change the judgments and decisions of logical user over the affairs of a business entity. The purpose of this research was to identify the auditors` ideas in private and public sector over basic materiality levels and compare the perspective of these two groups over these levels. The statistical population of this research is managers in auditing firm, partners in auditing institutions. According to Kukran formula, the sample volumes of this research are 84 people. The results indicate that, there is a meaningful difference between high and low important levels from the viewpoint of active auditors in private and public sectors. This means that there is no consensus between these two groups in determining high materiality level. In other words, in determining the low important level, the average viewpoint of auditors in auditing organization in relation to private sector is minimum. We concluded that public sector's auditors are more conservative than the ones in private sector.
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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jge:journl:814. 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: (Dr J K Sachdeva)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.