审计数据分析是否影响陪审员对审计质量和审计疏忽的看法?

IF 0.8 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Dereck Barr‐Pulliam, Helen L. Brown-Liburd, Amanda Gates Carlson
{"title":"审计数据分析是否影响陪审员对审计质量和审计疏忽的看法?","authors":"Dereck Barr‐Pulliam, Helen L. Brown-Liburd, Amanda Gates Carlson","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2022-029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We summarize a recent study that examines whether and how the signals provided by the internal control (ICFR) opinion and auditor use of advanced data analytic tools (ADAs) influence juror negligence perceptions. When auditors issue an unqualified ICFR opinion and rely on traditional statistical sampling, jurors assess the auditors as more negligent than when the auditors use ADAs. Conversely, when auditors issue an adverse ICFR opinion, jurors ascribe less blame to auditors and more to investor plaintiffs regardless of whether the auditors use ADAs. Further, jurors perceive auditors as less negligent when they use ADAs for full population testing because they perceive ADAs to be an indicator of higher audit quality. Interestingly, jurors perceive no difference in the level of assurance provided by the audit opinion alone when auditors use ADAs relative to traditional sampling testing methods.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Audit Data Analytics Influence Juror Perceptions of Audit Quality and Auditor Negligence?\",\"authors\":\"Dereck Barr‐Pulliam, Helen L. Brown-Liburd, Amanda Gates Carlson\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/ciia-2022-029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We summarize a recent study that examines whether and how the signals provided by the internal control (ICFR) opinion and auditor use of advanced data analytic tools (ADAs) influence juror negligence perceptions. When auditors issue an unqualified ICFR opinion and rely on traditional statistical sampling, jurors assess the auditors as more negligent than when the auditors use ADAs. Conversely, when auditors issue an adverse ICFR opinion, jurors ascribe less blame to auditors and more to investor plaintiffs regardless of whether the auditors use ADAs. Further, jurors perceive auditors as less negligent when they use ADAs for full population testing because they perceive ADAs to be an indicator of higher audit quality. Interestingly, jurors perceive no difference in the level of assurance provided by the audit opinion alone when auditors use ADAs relative to traditional sampling testing methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Issues in Auditing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Issues in Auditing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2022-029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Issues in Auditing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2022-029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们总结了最近的一项研究,该研究考察了内部控制(ICFR)意见和审计师使用先进数据分析工具(ADA)提供的信号是否以及如何影响陪审员的疏忽感知。当审计师发表无保留的ICFR意见并依赖传统的统计抽样时,陪审员会认为审计师比审计师使用ADA时更疏忽。相反,当审计师发表不利的ICFR意见时,无论审计师是否使用ADA,陪审员都会减少对审计师的指责,而更多地归咎于投资者原告。此外,陪审员认为审计员在使用ADA进行全面人群测试时疏忽较少,因为他们认为ADA是更高审计质量的指标。有趣的是,与传统的抽样测试方法相比,当审计师使用ADA时,陪审员认为审计意见单独提供的保证水平没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Audit Data Analytics Influence Juror Perceptions of Audit Quality and Auditor Negligence?
We summarize a recent study that examines whether and how the signals provided by the internal control (ICFR) opinion and auditor use of advanced data analytic tools (ADAs) influence juror negligence perceptions. When auditors issue an unqualified ICFR opinion and rely on traditional statistical sampling, jurors assess the auditors as more negligent than when the auditors use ADAs. Conversely, when auditors issue an adverse ICFR opinion, jurors ascribe less blame to auditors and more to investor plaintiffs regardless of whether the auditors use ADAs. Further, jurors perceive auditors as less negligent when they use ADAs for full population testing because they perceive ADAs to be an indicator of higher audit quality. Interestingly, jurors perceive no difference in the level of assurance provided by the audit opinion alone when auditors use ADAs relative to traditional sampling testing methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Issues in Auditing
Current Issues in Auditing BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信