IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v27y2015i2p174-186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

For better or worse: A study of auditors' practices under Auditing Standard No. 7

Author

Listed:
  • Dickins, Denise
  • Fay, Rebecca
  • Daugherty, Brian

Abstract

The PCAOB's Auditing Standard No. 7 (AS No. 7) revised guidance for Engagement Quality Reviews (EQRs). To better understand the impact of resulting changes in practice, if any, that have occurred in the nature, extent, and timing of the EQR process, and the impact of such changes on audit quality, we surveyed practicing audit partners familiar with EQRs. Results indicate that AS No. 7 changed the nature of EQRs by impacting the role and approach of the EQ Reviewer. It impacted the extent of procedures performed by the EQ Reviewer and altered communications between the EQ Reviewer and most engagement team members, but it had little impact on the timing of EQRs. Collectively, results suggest AS No. 7 changed EQRs, but such changes may not have improved audit quality. These findings provide insight to the continuing conclusion of the PCAOB that many EQ Reviewers do not fulfill their role of monitoring audit quality, and are also suggestive of opportunities to improve the EQR process.

Suggested Citation

  • Dickins, Denise & Fay, Rebecca & Daugherty, Brian, 2015. "For better or worse: A study of auditors' practices under Auditing Standard No. 7," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 174-186.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:27:y:2015:i:2:p:174-186
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2015.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045715000375
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.09.008?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand Malsch & Yves Gendron, 2013. "Re-Theorizing Change: Institutional Experimentation and the Struggle for Domination in the Field of Public Accounting," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 870-899, July.
    2. Ricchiute, David N., 1999. "The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 155-171, April.
    3. Pentland, Brian T., 1993. "Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(7-8), pages 605-620.
    4. Rani Hoitash & Udi Hoitash, 2009. "The role of audit committees in managing relationships with external auditors after SOX: Evidence from the USA," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(4), pages 368-397, April.
    5. Karim Jamal & Paul E. Johnson & R. Glen Berryman, 1995. "Detecting Framing Effects in Financial Statements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 85-105, September.
    6. Carcello, Joseph V. & Hollingsworth, Carl & Mastrolia, Stacy A., 2011. "The effect of PCAOB inspections on Big 4 audit quality," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 85-96.
    7. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    8. Chee Lim & David Ding & Charlie Charoenwong, 2013. "Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 343-384, August.
    9. Arnold Schneider & William F. Messier, 2007. "Engagement quality review: insights from the academic literature," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 22(8), pages 823-839, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ruhnke, Klaus & Schmitz, Stefanie, 2019. "Review engagements – structure of audit firm methodology and its situational application in Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    2. Maroun, Warren & Atkins, Jill, 2014. "Section 45 of the Auditing Profession Act: Blowing the whistle for audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 248-263.
    3. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    4. George Drogalas & Michail Nerantzidis & Dimitrios Mitskinis & Ioannis Tampakoudis, 2021. "The relationship between audit fees and audit committee characteristics: evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 24-41, March.
    5. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Fernández Méndez, Carlos & Pathan, Shams & Arrondo García, Rubén, 2015. "Monitoring capabilities of busy and overlap directors: Evidence from Australia," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(PA), pages 444-469.
    7. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2013. "Audit office size, audit quality and audit pricing: evidence from small- and medium-sized enterprises," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 31-55, February.
    8. Pernilla Broberg & Torbjörn Tagesson & Daniela Argento & Niclas Gyllengahm & Ola Mårtensson, 2017. "Explaining the influence of time budget pressure on audit quality in Sweden," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(2), pages 331-350, June.
    9. Dermarkar, Simon & Hazgui, Mouna, 2022. "How auditors legitimize commercialism: A micro-discursive analysis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Beau, Pauline & Jerman, Lambert, 2022. "Bonding forged in “auditing hell”: The emotional qualities of Big Four auditors," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    11. Liu, Guoping & Sun, Jerry, 2019. "Did the SEC administrative proceedings against Chinese auditors affect audit quality?," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    12. Anderson-Gough, Fiona & Edgley, Carla & Robson, Keith & Sharma, Nina, 2022. "Organizational responses to multiple logics: Diversity, identity and the professional service firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Desai, Vikram & Bucaro, Anthony C. & Kim, Joung W. & Srivastava, Rajendra & Desai, Renu, 2023. "Toward a better expert system for auditor going concern opinions using Bayesian network inflation factors," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Jorgensen, Bjorn N. & Morley, Julia, 2017. "Discussion of “are related party transactions red flags?”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80801, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Jorien L. Pruijssers & Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens & J. Oosterhout, 2020. "Winning at a Losing Game? Side-Effects of Perceived Tournament Promotion Incentives in Audit Firms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 149-167, February.
    16. Kohler, Hervé & Pochet, Christine & Gendron, Yves, 2021. "Networks of interpretation: An ethnography of the quest for IFRS consistency in a global accounting firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.
    18. Ines Maraghni & Mehdi Nekhili, 2017. "Audit committee characteristics and audit fees: Evidence from France [Caractéristiques du comité d’audit et honoraires d’audit : cas des entreprises françaises]," Post-Print hal-01907594, HAL.
    19. Asif M. Huq & Fredrik Hartwig & Niklas Rudholm, 2022. "Do audited firms have a lower cost of debt?," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(2), pages 153-175, June.
    20. Laurence Daoust & Bertrand Malsch, 2020. "When the Client Is A Former Auditor: Auditees' Expert Knowledge and Social Capital as Threats to Staff Auditors' Operational Independence†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1333-1369, September.

    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:reacre:v:27:y:2015:i:2:p:174-186. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    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.