De senaste åren har vikten av en trovärdig finansiell rapportering av hög revisionskvalité lyfts fram. En högre kvalité säkerställs genom att besluta om gemensamma regler och principer för revisionsbyråer. Intresset av revisionen är olika och således finns olika syn på syftet med revisionen och vad den bör innehålla. Tolkningsskillnaderna gör att hög revisionskvalité upplevs olika.   Syftet med vår undersökning är att förklara ”hög” revisionskvalité utifrån revisorers och revisionens olika intressenters perspektiv samt att identifiera eventuella skillnader mellan revisorernas och dessa intressenters syn.   En kvantitativ ansats har använts och utifrån teorin har sex hypoteser skapats. Hypoteserna undersöker om det finns skillnader mellan revisorer och revisionens intressenter om vad hög revisionskvalité är. Genom en webbenkät fick respondenterna bedöma i vilken utsträckning 28 variabler leder till högre revisionskvalité.    Med undersökningen har vi funnit bevis för att det finns skillnader i uppfattningen om hur hög revisionskvalité uppnås mellan revisorer och intressenterna. Skillnader uppmättes för följande kategorier; revisorns oberoende, revisorns egenskaper, en god kommunikation och extern kontroll. Vi har också kunnat urskilja enskilt viktiga kvalitetsvariabler.   Eftersom författarna av denna uppsats inte har funnit någon tidigare studie som tittat på skillnader mellan revisorerna och studiens tre utvalda intressentgrupper i vad som leder till hög revisionskvalité, kan resultatet hjälpa till att sprida ljus över detta område. Resultatet kan också vara användbart för att se hur revisorerna och intressenterna ska närma sig varandra för att uppnå en trovärdigare revision. / In recent years, the importance of a credible financial report of high quality, have been highlighted. A high audit quality is ensured by the adoption of common rules and principles for accounting firms. The interest of the audit is different and therefore are there different views on the purpose and what the audit should contain. Interpreting differences allows high quality to be perceived different.   The aim of our study is to explain the “high” audit quality by auditors and audit stakeholders’ perspectives and to identify any differences between the auditors and those stakeholders’ views.   A quantitative approach has been used and based on the theory has six hypotheses been created. The hypotheses investigate whether there are differences between auditors and audit stakeholders on what the high level of audit quality is. Through a web survey, respondents were assessing the extent to which 28 variables leads to higher audit quality.   In our study we found evidence that there are differences in perceptions of the high level of audit quality is achieved between the auditors and stakeholders. Differences were measured for the following categories: auditor independence, auditor characteristics, good communication and external control. We have also been able to distinguish individual key quality variables.   Since the authors of this paper haven’t found any previous study that looked at the differences between the auditors and this study’s three selected stakeholder groups in what leads to high audit quality, the result may help to give light on this area. The results can also be useful to see how auditors and stakeholders should approach each over to achieve a credible audit.

Fair Value Accounting is becoming increasingly more prominent, and auditing such measurements is at times difficult as a great deal of estimates and judgments are involved. This makes auditors jobs more challenging. Research has found that there is a need for understanding how auditing standards affect the audit process. Furthermore, some studies have shown that there is a gap between auditors and inspectors view of what constitutes sufficient and appropriate audit evidence regarding fair value measurements, the “FVM gap”. The aim of this study is to provide new insight on how auditing standards and inspectors affect the judgment of auditors in regards to fair value measurements. This study contributes to audit standard setters by illuminating how current auditing standards affect auditor judgment when auditing fair value measurements. It also contributes knowledge on how inspections affect judgment in the auditing process. Finally, it provides insight to practitioners on how box-checking and similar tools affect auditor judgment. We performed semi-structured interviews with respondents who have considerable experience of fair value measurements. The empirical data was thematically analysed and related to theories on judgment and decision-making as well as structure versus judgment research. A number of interesting findings were made; auditing standards seem to be well adjusted to auditors’ needs, documentation is one of the major issues when dealing with fair value measurements and the toughness of inspections between countries seem to differ. Some potential topics for future research were identified: whether or not a gap of interpretations exists between auditors and the lawyers of inspecting entities, and what effects such a gap could have; if the documentation of both audit clients and auditors needs to be improved upon. More potential areas for future research can be found in the Conclusion.