IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Joint Audit and Accuracy of the Auditor's Report: An Empirical Study

Listed author(s):
  • Julia Baldauf


    (Innsbruck University, Department of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Universitaetsstraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Rudolf Steckel


    (Innsbruck University, Department of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Universitaetsstraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

Registered author(s):

    This study examines the effects of a joint audit on auditor’s report consensus and accuracy. We investigate whether a joint audit, particularly the report issued, improves an audit’s quality. We measure the audit’s quality using the degree of auditor consensus in the auditor’s report. We also use an expected opinion, which we believe is appropriate in the defined circumstances, as a scale for the measurement of the report’s accuracy. Participants in the study were statutory auditors from Austria and Germany. At present, manners of improving audit quality and auditing decisions are being intensively discussed in the European Union and everywhere in the world. The joint audit approach is a very current topic in this discussion. Regulators and standard setters are extensively examining the benefits of various audit approaches. Nevertheless, in most countries, the joint audit approach is still utilised on a voluntary basis and is not very common. Our study provides evidence that auditors who use a joint audit approach achieve higher consensus and greater accuracy. In light of current discussion on improving the quality of audits by implementing new methods and regulations, these results are significant for both auditing practice and audit research. Despite this importance, there are very few studies and little research on improving quality through the use of a joint audit approach. Our results demonstrate the need for further investigation of the determinants of audit performance when using a joint audit approach. Using a case study research design and an interview, we draw conclusions and discuss necessary future research.

    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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology (EMATTECH), Kavala, Greece in its journal International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research (IJESAR).

    Volume (Year): 5 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 2 (August)
    Pages: 7-42

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:tei:journl:v:5:y:2012:i:2:p:7-42
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. repec:bla:joares:v:23:y:1985:i:1:p:256-267 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jere Francis & Chrystelle Richard & Ann Vanstraelen, 2006. "Assessing France's Joint Audit Requirement: Are Two Heads Better Than One?," Post-Print halshs-00153518, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tei:journl:v:5:y:2012:i:2:p:7-42. 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: (Kostas Stergidis)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.