IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v112y2024ics0361368224000084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coaching Today's auditors: What causes reviewers to adopt a more developmental approach?

Author

Listed:
  • Andiola, Lindsay M.
  • Brazel, Joseph F.
  • Downey, Denise Hanes
  • Schaefer, Tammie J.

Abstract

Audit workpaper review is a quality control mechanism intended to detect preparer errors and professionally develop preparers. In this study, we experimentally investigate two factors that theory predicts affect the degree to which audit reviewers adopt a developmental approach: local versus international preparer office affiliation and likely versus unlikely preparer recurrence. We find that reviewers adopt a less developmental approach for international preparers but a more developmental approach for preparers likely to recur. The adoption of a more developmental approach not only results in more coaching via review comments but is associated with greater detection of seeded preparer errors. Taken together, our findings highlight the susceptibility of quality control efforts in the global audit environment and identify recurrence as a potential intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Andiola, Lindsay M. & Brazel, Joseph F. & Downey, Denise Hanes & Schaefer, Tammie J., 2024. "Coaching Today's auditors: What causes reviewers to adopt a more developmental approach?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000084
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2024.101548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368224000084
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101548?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000084. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.