Experience and the organization of auditors’ knowledge

Recent audit research has explored the impact of auditors’ knowledge on various audit judgments. However, for this knowledge to influence the search for and interpretation of audit evidence, it must first be retrieved from the auditor’s knowledge base. At least two organization schemes have been identified in audit research ‐ transaction cycle and audit objective. Directly compares the two schemes in a preliminary analytical procedures context. Using multiple tests, indicates that the inexperienced auditors and experienced managers/partners exhibit an audit objective organization scheme, while experienced audit staff and seniors exhibit characteristics of both an audit objective and transaction cycle organization scheme, with neither scheme dominating. Task‐specific experience appears to have little effect on knowledge organization until a significant amount of experience is gained.

[1]  Robert Libby,et al.  Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: The role of knowledge and memory in audit judgment , 1995 .

[2]  Robert Libby,et al.  Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation , 1993 .

[3]  David A. Schkade,et al.  Numeric and linguistic information representation in multiattribute choice , 1991 .

[4]  Leslie D. Turner,et al.  The relative efficiency of boards of accountancy: A measure of the profession's enforcement and disciplinary processes , 1991 .

[5]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[6]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  J. Hal Reneau,et al.  The Effects of Memory Structure on Using Rule‐Based Expert Systems for Training: A Framework and an Empirical Test* , 1990 .

[8]  Cindy Moeckel,et al.  THE EFFECT OF EXPERIENCE ON AUDITORS MEMORY ERRORS , 1990 .

[9]  Robert Libby,et al.  Experience And The Ability To Explain Audit Findings , 1990 .

[10]  Barry L. Lewis,et al.  Determinants of Auditor Expertise , 1990 .

[11]  G. Prekumar,et al.  A cognitive study of the decision-making process in a business context: implications for design of expert systems , 1989 .

[12]  Kathryn T. Spoehr,et al.  Knowledge Organization and the Acquisition of Procedural Expertise , 1989 .

[13]  Richard M. Tubbs,et al.  The effect of experience on the auditor's organization and amount of knowledge , 1988 .

[14]  G. W. Milligan,et al.  An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set , 1985 .

[15]  Robert Libby,et al.  Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review , 1985 .

[16]  R. David Plumlee,et al.  The Standard Of Objectivity For Internal Auditors - Memory And Bias Effects , 1985 .

[17]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING , 1984 .

[18]  W. Waller,et al.  The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures , 1984 .

[19]  D. Herrmann,et al.  Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. , 1982 .

[20]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Dorothea P. Simon,et al.  Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.

[22]  Ron Weber,et al.  Some Characteristics of the Free Recall of Computer Controls by EDP Auditors , 1980 .

[23]  C. Gettys,et al.  Hypothesis plausibility and hypothesis generation , 1979 .

[24]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies , 1977 .

[25]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  Plasticity in memorial networks , 1975 .

[26]  T. Caliński,et al.  A dendrite method for cluster analysis , 1974 .