Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2009. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Melbourne, Dept. of Accounting and Business Information Systems, 2006. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 213-229).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2006. / Title from title screen (site viewed on Nov. 2, 2006). PDF text: iii, 86 p. ; 3.21Mb. UMI publication number: AAT 3214106. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in microfilm and microfiche format.

Auditors form judgments by integrating the evidence they gather with information stored in memory (knowledge). As they acquire experience, auditors have the opportunity to learn how different patterns of evidence are associated with particular audit problems. Research in experimental psychology has demonstrated that individuals with task-specific experience can match the cues they encounter with patterns they have learned, and form judgments without consciously analyzing the individual cues. Accounting researchers have suggested that auditors develop judgment templates through task-specific experience, and that these knowledge structures automatically provide decisions in familiar situations. I examined whether auditor knowledge leads to reliance on judgment templates. To test this thesis, I synthesized a theoretical framework and developed research hypotheses that predict relationships between task-specific experience (my surrogate for knowledge) and (1) measures of cognitive effort, (2) accuracy of residual memory traces, and (3) performance with respect to identifying potential problems. To test these predictions, I provided senior auditors with comprehensive case materials for a hypothetical client and asked them to use analytical procedures to identify potential audit problems. Subjects acquired information and documented their findings on personal computers using software that I developed to record their activities.

Auditors use substantive analytical procedures to make assertions about the adequacy and appropriateness of client balances. The analytical procedure process consists of auditors creating independent account expectations and corroborating unusual fluctuations through obtaining and evaluating additional audit evidence. Prior analytical procedure research has found that knowledge of clients' unaudited account balances biases auditors' expectations towards the current year figures. However, this research has failed to examine the impact of biased expectations on the subsequent stages of analytical procedures. This dissertation assesses the full impact of biased account expectations on auditors' use of analytical procedures. I experimentally test the hypotheses of my dissertation through administering an experiment to senior level auditors. After inducing an account expectation bias that favors the client account balance in half the participants, I examine the auditors' cognitive investigation into an unusual account fluctuation. The results indicate that a biased account expectation negatively affects auditors' judgment quality. In particular, a biased expectation leads auditors to favor hypotheses and additional information that supports the proposition that the client's balance is reasonably stated. Alternatively, auditors with unbiased account expectations are more willing to consider all hypotheses and are able to identify the most pertinent additional information to the decision task. As a result of the different decision strategies employed, auditors who form unbiased account expectations are significantly more likely than auditors with biased account expectations to identify the correct relationship among the underlying data and the proposed hypotheses during a substantive analytical procedure.

Audit evidence enables the auditor to express an opinion on the financial statements. To address the risk that the auditor may express an inappropriate opinion, the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures must be responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement. The auditor must aggregate the levels of assurance obtained from different combinations of tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to respond to the assessed risks. These evidence planning decisions are complex and require professional judgement. Research has found that the extent of audit procedures is not linked to the assessed risks and that auditors may not know to aggregate evidence from different types of audit procedures. Research also supports the use of a structured audit methodology that includes decision models, to guide the application of professional judgement. This leads to the overall objective of this study: the development of an integrated audit evidence planning model to quantify the extent of audit evidence. The study employs a grounded theory model building approach, interpreting the relevant concepts and principles from the literature review into the development of the model. The integrated audit evidence planning model quantitatively relates the extent of audit evidence in a logical and structured manner with the risk assessment and three distinct overall levels of assurance needed to support the audit opinion. It uses the cumulative nature of audit evidence and the compensatory inter-relationship between tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to quantitatively aggregate the extent and levels of assurance from the different combinations of procedures to obtain reasonable assurance at the required overall level of assurance. The model provides a framework for influencing and guiding the exercise of professional judgement and is a practical and effective tool to benefit the users thereof when conducting an audit. Thus, the study models the extent of audit evidence with reference to the aggregation of different types and combinations of evidence and the linkage between the risk assessment and the extent of evidence that provides a flexible framework for the application of professional judgement regarding the gathering of audit evidence. / Auditing / D. Com. (Auditing)

Audit evidence enables the auditor to express an opinion on the financial statements. To address the risk that the auditor may express an inappropriate opinion, the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures must be responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement. The auditor must aggregate the levels of assurance obtained from different combinations of tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to respond to the assessed risks. These evidence planning decisions are complex and require professional judgement. Research has found that the extent of audit procedures is not linked to the assessed risks and that auditors may not know to aggregate evidence from different types of audit procedures. Research also supports the use of a structured audit methodology that includes decision models, to guide the application of professional judgement. This leads to the overall objective of this study: the development of an integrated audit evidence planning model to quantify the extent of audit evidence. The study employs a grounded theory model building approach, interpreting the relevant concepts and principles from the literature review into the development of the model. The integrated audit evidence planning model quantitatively relates the extent of audit evidence in a logical and structured manner with the risk assessment and three distinct overall levels of assurance needed to support the audit opinion. It uses the cumulative nature of audit evidence and the compensatory inter-relationship between tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to quantitatively aggregate the extent and levels of assurance from the different combinations of procedures to obtain reasonable assurance at the required overall level of assurance. The model provides a framework for influencing and guiding the exercise of professional judgement and is a practical and effective tool to benefit the users thereof when conducting an audit. Thus, the study models the extent of audit evidence with reference to the aggregation of different types and combinations of evidence and the linkage between the risk assessment and the extent of evidence that provides a flexible framework for the application of professional judgement regarding the gathering of audit evidence. / Auditing / D. Com. (Auditing)