E. Vahidi Elysseai; A. Rahdaryan
Volume 6, Issue 24 , January 2009, , Pages 117-146
Abstract
This research was done in the second half of 1387 in Iran to appraisal influencing factors on auditor's judgment and determining the materiality degree on misstatement detection of financial statements. After theoretically study, quantitative and qualitative factors recognized and sort in 28 factors ...
Read More
This research was done in the second half of 1387 in Iran to appraisal influencing factors on auditor's judgment and determining the materiality degree on misstatement detection of financial statements. After theoretically study, quantitative and qualitative factors recognized and sort in 28 factors at 2 equal groups and in 350, 300 questionnaires send for internal and external auditors that 131 external auditors and 59 internal auditors answered them.
Perception of Iranian internal and external auditors appraisal to efficiency each factors using statistical tests and specify that auditors perception's to quantitative and qualitative factors are the same, but they have not the same cognition.
Results of this research show that by not existing general difference in perception of auditors to efficiency factors, auditors sort them to different configuration. As external auditors appraisal 8 quantitative factors and 5 qualitative factors to the most effective factors and against internal auditors recognize 6 quantitative factors and only 1 qualitative factor to the most effective factors.
Also Results of this research show that external auditors think that qualitative factors are more effective and internal auditors think that quantitative factors are more effective.
Hossein Etemadi; Hassan Jabari
Volume 5, Issue 18 , July 2007, , Pages 105-122
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of differential accountability pressure strength on auditors’ materiality judgment. We evaluate whether incremental levels of accountability (i.e., review, justification, ...
Read More
This study investigates the effects of differential accountability pressure strength on auditors’ materiality judgment. We evaluate whether incremental levels of accountability (i.e., review, justification, feedback) increase judgment conservatism, decreases variability, and increase effort. Eighty four auditors participated in a between -subjects experiment that included a planning materiality task. As predicted, auditors under higher levels of accountability pressure (i.e., justification, feedback) provided more conservatism materiality judgment and had less judgment variability than auditors under lower levels of pressure (i.e., review, anonymity). The results also indicate that accountability strength was positively related to the amount of time spent on the task and explanation length. We consider implications for research, practice, and policy in the context of the studies limitations.
