IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v14y1997i3p501-513.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Investigation of the Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review

Author

Listed:
  • E. MICHAEL BAMBER
  • ROBERT J. RAMSAY

Abstract

. This study examines the effect of specialization at the different stages of an audit workpaper review. Auditing literature advises focusing each review level on specific kinds of errors (i.e., seniors on mechanical errors and managers on conceptual errors), rather than having seniors and managers perform successive all†encompassing reviews. However, surveys of review practice suggest that all†encompassing reviews are common. To determine whether specialization at different levels of review improves reviewers' overall effectiveness, this study has 35 managers and 39 seniors actually perform a review of a realistic set of workpapers. Half the subjects performed specialized reviews, whereas the other half performed all†encompassing reviews. Overall accuracy rates in our study are consistent with prior research. In addition, the combined reviews of seniors and managers are more effective than those of either seniors or managers separately, demonstrating the benefits of hierarchical review. However, specialized review leads reviewers to be significantly less accurate than reviewers performing all†encompassing reviews. The results suggest specialization will not automatically improve review effectiveness, and that accounting firms may need to re†evaluate their review guidance and professional training on workpaper reviews.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Michael Bamber & Robert J. Ramsay, 1997. "An Investigation of the Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:14:y:1997:i:3:p:501-513
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00538.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00538.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00538.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramsay, Rj, 1994. "Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 127-135.
    2. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    3. Libby, Robert & Trotman, Ken T., 1993. "The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 559-574, August.
    4. Trotman, Kt, 1985. "The Review Process And The Accuracy Of Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 740-752.
    5. Moeckel, C, 1990. "The Effect Of Experience On Auditors Memory Errors," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 368-387.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    2. Ulfert Gronewold & Anna Gold & Steven Salterio, 2013. "Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate and Error Type," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 189-208, September.
    3. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    4. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    5. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    6. William F. Messier, Jr. & Vincent Owhoso & Carter Rakovski, 2008. "Can Audit Partners Predict Subordinates' Ability to Detect Errors?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1241-1264, December.
    7. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    8. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Gronewold, U. & Salterio, S., 2010. "The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 20551, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683, September.
    10. Noel Harding & Ken T. Trotman, 1999. "Hierarchical Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 671-684, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    2. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    3. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    4. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    5. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683, September.
    6. Noel Harding & Ken T. Trotman, 1999. "Hierarchical Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 671-684, December.
    7. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    8. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    9. Kida, Thomas & Smith, James F., 1995. "The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 585-610.
    10. Beaulieu, Philip R., 1996. "A note on the role of memory in commercial loan officers' use of accounting and character information," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 515-528, August.
    11. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    12. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    13. Ulfert Gronewold & Anna Gold & Steven Salterio, 2013. "Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate and Error Type," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 189-208, September.
    14. Yip-Ow, Jackson & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2000. "Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 203-215, February.
    15. Choo, Freddie, 1996. "Auditors' knowledge content and judgment performance: A cognitive script approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 339-359, May.
    16. Kida, T. & Smith, J. F. & Maletta, M., 1998. "The effects of encoded memory traces for numerical data on accounting decision making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 451-466.
    17. Ismail, Zubaidah & Trotman, Ken T., 1995. "The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 345-357, July.
    18. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    19. S. Hoozée & W. Bruggeman, 2007. "Towards explaining cost estimation errors in time equation-based costing," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/486, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    20. Alecia Nagy & Fred Phillips, 2014. "Developing Students' Technical Knowledge and Case‐Based Reasoning Skills: Three Short Cases in Financial Accounting," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 149-158, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:coacre:v:14:y:1997:i:3:p:501-513. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.