Asdadad

Topics: Audit, Auditing, Auditor's report Pages: 33 (9992 words) Published: January 11, 2013
The Unqualified Auditor’s Report: A Study of User Perceptions, Effects on User Decisions and Decision Processes, and
Directions for Future Research

A Summary Report to be discussed at the
Accounting Research Forum
Leventhal School of Accounting
University of Southern California

April 17, 2009

Theodore J. Mock.
University of California, Riverside, and University of Maastricht

Jerry L. Turner,
The University of Memphis

Glen L. Gray
California State University, Northridge

Paul J. Coram
University of Melbourne, Australia

Note: This document is based on a detailed final report (in process) of approximately 200 pages. The research is part of ASB and IAASB efforts to possibly revise standards and guidance for the financial statement auditors’ report. The detailed report provides the more traditional contents of a research study including more detailed discussion of research questions, literature, method, etc. and is available on request.

The authors are particularly interested in comment and suggestions directed at improving our presentation on April 29 to the AICPA ASB and comments as to which of the presented future research questions seem most promising to pursue for a Phase II study.

The Unqualified Auditor’s Report: A Study of User Perceptions, Effects on User Decisions and Decision Processes, and
Directions for Future Research

A Summary Report to the Auditing Standards Board
and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board

New York, New York

April 29, 2009

Theodore J. Mock, Ph.D.
University of California, Riverside, and University of Maastricht

Jerry L. Turner, Ph.D., CPA (Inactive), CIA
The University of Memphis

Glen L. Gray, Ph.D., CPA
California State University, Northridge

Paul J. Coram, Ph.D., FCA
University of Melbourne, Australia

Sponsored by the Auditing Standards Board and the
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board

The Unqualified Auditor’s Report: A Study of User Perceptions, Effects on User Decisions and Decision Processes, and
Directions for Future Research

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Research Design1

1.1 Focus Groups1
1.2 Verbal Protocol Analysis (VPA)2

2. Results3

2.1 Focus groups3
2.1.1 Level of Assurance.3
2.1.2 Sampling5
2.1.3 Internal Controls.5
2.1.4 Internal Control Audits.5
2.1.5 Fraud6
2.1.6 Going Concern6
2.1.7 Overall Usefulness of Unqualified Auditor’s Report6 2.1.8 Differences between Auditor Intent and User Perceptions of Intent7 2.2 Verbal Protocol Analysis (VPA)8
2.2.1 VPA Study 18
2.2.2 VPA Study 28

3. Directions for Future Research10

3.1 Information about the audit12
3.2 Quality of the financial statements13
3.3 Quality of the financial reporting system14
3.4 Quality of the client as a business entity14
3.5 Method of Disclosure15

4. Final Comments15

5. References……………………………………………………………………………………18 The Unqualified Auditor’s Report: A Study of User Perceptions, Effects on User Decisions and Decision Processes, and Directions for Future Research

This report provides a synopsis of a project requested and sponsored by the Auditing Standards Board (ASB) and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). The project has two primary objectives with the first being to identify and provide insight on the nature and underlying causes of user perceptions regarding the unqualified auditor’s report among various classes of financial statement and auditor’s report users. This objective is achieved in part one of this study. The second objective is to examine if and how an unqualified auditor’s report impacts the judgments of financial statement users. This objective is achieved in part two of this study. Based on our findings, we offer directions for future research on issues that could improve the usefulness of the...

References: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1988. Reports on Audited Financial Statements. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 58. New York: (AICPA).
———. 2006. The Auditor’s Communication with Those Charged With Governance (SAS No. 114). New York: AICPA.
———. 2008. Communicating Internal Control Related Matters Identified in an Audit (SAS No. 115). New York: AICPA.
Austin, J., and P. Delaney. 1998. Protocol analysis as a tool for behavior analysis. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 15: 41-56.
Bailey, K., J. Bylinski, and M. Shields. 1983. Audit report wording changes. Journal of Accounting Research 21: 355-370.
Best, P., S. Buckby, and C. Tan. 2001. Evidence of the audit expectation gap in Singapore. Managerial Auditing Journal 16 (3): 134.
Biggs, S. F., and T. J. Mock. 1983. An Investigation of Auditor Decision Processes in the Evaluation of Internal Controls and Audit Scope Decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 21 (1):234.
Brody, S., L. Weiss, and J. Lubbock. 2008. Protecting and Controlling Company Documents in Delaware. The National Law Journal. November 17.
Brown, T., D. Hatherly, and J. Innes. 1993. The review report: An empirical investigation Accounting and Business Research 24 (93): 11-18.
Coram, P., T. Mock, and G. Monroe. 2006. An Investigation into the Use of Non-financial Performance Indicators by Financial Analysts. (Working paper): The University of Melbourne.
Crutcher, R. 1994. Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in psychological research. Psychological Science 5: 241-244.
De Martinis, M., and A. Burrowes. 1996. Materiality and risk judgements: A review of users ' expectations. Managerial Finance 22 (9): 16.
Dillard, J., and D. Jensen. 1983. The Auditor 's Report: An Analysis of Opinion. The Accounting Review 58 (4): 787.
Ericsson, K., and H. Simon. 1993. Protocol Analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Geiger, M. 1994. The new auditor 's report. Journal of Accountancy 178 (5): 59-64.
Hatherly, D., J. Innes, and T. Brown. 1991. The Expanded Audit Report - An Empirical Investigation. Accounting and Business Research 21 (84): 311-319.
Hayes, C., G. Monroe, and T. Mock. 2006. The Effects of the Structural Strength of the Board of Directors and Recurring Non-Audit Services on Independence Risk (Working Paper): Australia National University.
Henderson, R., M. Smith, J. Podd, and H. Varela-Alvarez. 1995. A comparison of the four prominent user-based methods for evaluating the usability of computer software. Ergonomics 39: 2030-2044.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2005. The Independent Auditor 's Report on a Complete Set of General Purpose Financial Statements (ISA 700). New York: IAASB.
———. 2006. Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement (ISA 315 Redrafted). New York: IAASB.
———. 2008. Communications with Those Charged with Governance (ISA 260-Revised and Redrafted). New York: IAASB.
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2008. The Independent Auditor’s Report on General Purpose Financial Statements. ISA 700 (Redrafted). New York: New York.
Kneer, D., P. Reckers, and M. Jennings. 1996. An empirical examination of the influence of the "new" US audit report and fraud red-flags on perceptions of auditor culpability. Managerial Auditing Journal 11 (6): 18-41.
Lowe, D. 1994. The expectation gap in the legal system: perception differences between auditors and judges. Journal of Applied Business Research 10 (Summer): 39-44.
———. 2001. Auditors’ and investors’ perceptions of the “expectation gap”. Accounting Horizons 15 (4): 345-358.
Miller, J., S. Reed, and R. Strawser. 1993. Bank loan officers ' perceptions of the new audit report. Accounting Horizons 7 (1): 39-52.
Mock, T., A. Wright, R. Srivastava, and H. Lu. 2006. The Framing and Evaluation of Multiple Hypotheses (Working paper): University of Southern California.
Monroe, G., and D. Woodliff. 1993. The effect of education on the audit expectation gap. Accounting and Finance (May): 61-78.
———. 1994. An empirical investigation of the audit expectation gap: Australian evidence. Accounting and Finance (May): 47-74.
Newell, A., and H. A. Simon. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Payne, J., M. Braunstein, and J. Carroll. 1978. Exploring pre-decisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22: 17-44.
Porter, B. 1993 An Empirical Study of the Audit Expectation-Performance Gap. Accounting and Business Research 24 (9.1): 49-68.
Pressley, M., and P. Afflerbach. 1995. Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading: Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pringle, L., R. Crum, and R. Swetz. 1990. Do SAS No. 59 format changes affect the outcome and the quality of investment decisions? Accounting Horizons 4 (3): 68-75.
Renkl, A. 1997. Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science 21: 1-29.
Simon, H., and C. Kaplan. 1989. Foundations of cognitive science. In Posner, M (ed.) Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sudman, S., N. Bradburn, and N. S. (eds.). 1996. Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
University of New South Wales and Australian National University (UNSW/ANU). 2004. The Impact of New Audit Report Formats on Perceptions and Investment Decision-Making Judgements of Users. (Melbourne, Australia: Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.).
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free