The Effects of Client and Preparer Risk Factors on Workpaper Review Effectiveness

Both client risk and workpaper preparer risk are important contextual factors that reviewers must manage. In this study, we experimentally investigate how combined client risk and preparer risk impact workpaper review effort and accuracy. We found that reviewers allocated more effort when reviewing workpapers of a high‐risk client, relative to a low‐risk client, but preparer risk did not drive effort. With respect to review accuracy, we found that in a high client risk environment, reviewers were more accurate when preparer risk was high than when preparer risk was low. However, when client risk was low, review accuracy was invariant to preparer risk. These results suggest that although preparer risk is not a driver of review effort, it nevertheless can affect accuracy when client risk is high. Together, the results suggest that review effort does not appear to be the sole determinant of review accuracy.

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

[2]  F. Phillips.  Auditor Attention to and Judgments of Aggressive Financial Reporting , 1999 .

[3]  William F. Messier,et al.  Error Detection by Industry‐Specialized Teams during Sequential Audit Review , 2002 .

[4]  E. Michael Bamber,et al.  An Investigation of the Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review , 1997 .

[5]  Geoffrey B. Sprinkle,et al.  The Effects of Audit Risk and Information Importance on Auditor Memory During Working Paper Review , 1997 .

[6]  Willie E. Gist,et al.  Empirical evidence on the functional relation between audit planning and total audit effort , 1996 .

[7]  R. Iman,et al.  Rank Transformations as a Bridge between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics , 1981 .

[8]  K. Trotman,et al.  Reviewers' Responses to Anticipated Stylization Attempts by Preparers of Audit Workpapers , 2003 .

[9]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[10]  J. Rich.  Reviewers' Responses to Expectations about the Client and the Preparer , 2004 .

[11]  I. Hilmi Elifoglu,et al.  AU ‐C 240 Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit , 2003, Wiley Practitioner's Guide to GAAS 2021.

[12]  Noel Harding,et al.  Hierarchical Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance , 1999 .

[13]  Joseph H. Bylinski,et al.  The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments* , 1987 .

[14]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  The Review Process And The Accuracy Of Auditor Judgments , 1985 .

[15]  Karim Jamal,et al.  Do Auditors Objectively Evaluate Their Subordinates' Work? , 2001 .

[16]  Robert J. Ramsay,et al.  Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance , 1994 .

[17]  E. Bamber,et al.  The Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review on Review Efficiency and Reviewers' Confidence , 1998 .

[18]  K. Trotman,et al.  Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of The Review , 2001 .

[19]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective , 1997 .