IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/joares/v49y2011i5p1275-1306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through

Author

Listed:
  • TAMARA A. LAMBERT
  • CHRISTOPHER P. AGOGLIA

Abstract

The PCAOB recently expressed concern regarding the sufficiency and effectiveness of review and supervision of audit fieldwork. For the audit review process to succeed as a quality control mechanism, any issues or questions identified by a reviewer must be adequately resolved and documented in the workpapers. If audit review fails to correct for errors/biases in the work of reviewees, there can be serious detrimental effects on audit quality and, in turn, financial statement quality. Our study extends the literature by examining the phase of the review process in which reviewees respond to (or “close”) notes/comments provided by their reviewers. Utilizing an experiment, we find that certain contextual factors (review timeliness and review note frame) influence reviewee follow‐through during this critical phase. Specifically, we find that a delayed review elicits significantly lower effort levels than a timely review. Review note frame (i.e., how the reviewer phrases the rationale given for the underlying directive of a review note) significantly affects reviewee effort and performance when the review is timely. Through mediation analyses, we explore the mediating effect of effort on performance. In addition, we find that reviewer delay leads to greater over‐documentation.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:49:y:2011:i:5:p:1275-1306
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00423.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00423.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00423.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bronson, Scott N. & Hogan, Chris E. & Johnson, Marilyn F. & Ramesh, K., 2011. "The unintended consequences of PCAOB auditing Standard Nos. 2 and 3 on the reliability of preliminary earnings releases," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 95-114, February.
    2. Pittman, Jeffrey A. & Fortin, Steve, 2004. "Auditor choice and the cost of debt capital for newly public firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 113-136, February.
    3. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    4. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    5. Bronson, Scott N. & Hogan, Chris E. & Johnson, Marilyn F. & Ramesh, K., 2011. "The unintended consequences of PCAOB auditing Standard Nos. 2 and 3 on the reliability of preliminary earnings releases," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 95-114.
    6. Ramsay, Rj, 1994. "Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 127-135.
    7. Libby, R & Lipe, Mg, 1992. "Incentives, Effort, And The Cognitive-Processes Involved In Accounting-Related Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 249-273.
    8. Jeffrey Hales, 2007. "Directional Preferences, Information Processing, and Investors' Forecasts of Earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 607-628, June.
    9. Forgas, Joseph P. & George, Jennifer M., 2001. "Affective Influences on Judgments and Behavior in Organizations: An Information Processing Perspective," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 3-34, September.
    10. William F. Messier, Jr. & Vincent Owhoso & Carter Rakovski, 2008. "Can Audit Partners Predict Subordinates' Ability to Detect Errors?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1241-1264, December.
    11. Frederickson, JR & Peffer, SA & Pratt, J, 1999. "Performance evaluation judgments: Effects of prior experience under different performance evaluation schemes and feedback frequencies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 151-165.
    12. Hoffman, Vicky B. & Joe, Jennifer R. & Moser, Donald V., 2003. "The effect of constrained processing on auditors' judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 699-714.
    13. Barbara Ritter, 2006. "Can Business Ethics be Trained? A Study of the Ethical Decision-making Process in Business Students," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 153-164, October.
    14. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    15. Paul C. Nutt, 1998. "Framing Strategic Decisions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 195-216, April.
    16. Christopher P. Agoglia & Thomas Kida & Dennis M. Hanno, 2003. "The Effects of Alternative Justification Memos on the Judgments of Audit Reviewees and Reviewers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 33-46, March.
    17. Kida, T, 1984. "The Impact Of Hypothesis-Testing Strategies On Auditors Use Of Judgment Data," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 332-340.
    18. Yip-Ow, Jackson & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2000. "Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 203-215, February.
    19. Olivier Herrbach, 2005. "The art of Compromise ? The individual and organisational legitimacy of "irregular auditing"," Post-Print halshs-00005479, HAL.
    20. Knechel, W. Robert, 2007. "The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 383-408.
    21. D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce & Shankar Venkataraman, 2007. "How Disaggregation Enhances the Credibility of Management Earnings Forecasts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 811-837, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Booker, Danielle D. & Pelzer, Josette R.E. & Richardson, Jeremy R., 2023. "Integrating data analytics into the auditing curriculum: Insights and perceptions from early-career auditors," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    3. Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Andiola, Lindsay M. & Bedard, Jean C., 2018. "Delivering the “tough message”: Moderators of subordinate auditors’ reactions to feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 52-68.
    5. William D. Brink & Jonathan H. Grenier & Jonathan S. Pyzoha & Andrew Reffett, 2019. "The Effects of Clawbacks on Auditors’ Propensity to Propose Restatements and Risk Assessments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 313-332, August.
    6. Tamara A. Lambert & Marietta Peytcheva, 2020. "When Is the Averaging Effect Present in Auditor Judgments?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 277-296, March.
    7. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    8. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    9. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    10. Păcuraru-Ionescu Cătălin-Paul & Cîmpan Marius & Borlea Sorin Nicolae, 2023. "Determinants of Audit Quality and Connections with Economic Development and Education," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 741-751, July.
    11. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    12. Gopal Krishnan & Marietta Peytcheva, 2019. "The Risk of Fraud in Family Firms: Assessments of External Auditors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 261-278, June.
    13. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    14. Finley, Wayne & Waymire, Tammy R., 2013. "Thinking practice: Iteration, peer review, and policy analysis in a governmental accounting class," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 333-349.
    15. Thomas, Tyler F., 2016. "Motivating revisions of management accounting systems: An examination of organizational goals and accounting feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-16.
    16. Ikseon Suh & Adi Masli & John T. Sweeney, 2021. "Do Management Training Grounds Reduce Internal Auditor Objectivity and External Auditor Reliance? The Influence of Family Firms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 205-227, September.
    17. Kai A. Bauch & Peter Kotzian & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2021. "Likeability in subjective performance evaluations: does it bias managers’ weighting of performance measures?," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 35-59, February.
    18. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions’," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    2. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    3. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions’," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    5. Andiola, Lindsay M. & Bedard, Jean C., 2018. "Delivering the “tough message”: Moderators of subordinate auditors’ reactions to feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 52-68.
    6. Lori Shefchik Bhaskar & Patrick E. Hopkins & Joseph H. Schroeder, 2019. "An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 355-390, May.
    7. Noel Harding, 2010. "Understanding the structure of audit workpaper error knowledge and its relationship with workpaper review performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(3), pages 663-683, September.
    8. Jeffrey L. Hoopes & Kenneth J. Merkley & Joseph Pacelli & Joseph H. Schroeder, 2018. "Audit personnel salaries and audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1096-1136, September.
    9. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    10. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    11. Maroun, Warren & Solomon, Jill, 2014. "Whistle-blowing by external auditors: Seeking legitimacy for the South African Audit Profession?," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 109-121.
    12. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    13. Han, Jun, 2013. "A literature synthesis of experimental studies on management earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-70.
    14. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    15. Claudine Mangen & Alexia Paduano & Bianca Paduano & Jessica Hadzurik & Juliano Leggio & Kayla Russo, 2020. "Smoke and Mirrors? Disclosures in the Marijuana Industry in Canada," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 149-179, September.
    16. Kimball Chapman & Michael Drake & Joseph H. Schroeder & Timothy Seidel, 2023. "Earnings announcement delays and implications for the auditor-client relationship," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 45-90, March.
    17. Wen He & Hwee Cheng Tan & Leon Wong, 2020. "Return windows and the value relevance of earnings," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(3), pages 2549-2583, September.
    18. Moehrle, Stephen R. & Mintchik, Natalia & Mohrman, Mary Beth & Reynolds-Moehrle, Jennifer A. & Vargus, Mark, 2014. "Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2011 academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 175-195.
    19. Brown, Jason L. & Farrington, Sukari & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2016. "Biased self-assessments, feedback, and employees' compensation plan choices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-59.
    20. Abernathy, John L. & Barnes, Michael & Stefaniak, Chad, 2013. "A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-60.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:49:y:2011:i:5:p:1275-1306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8456 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.