The Effects of Review Forms and Reviewer''s Perference on Auditors'' Performance

• Main Authors: Jung-Ling Liao, 廖容翎
• Other Authors: 杜榮瑞
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/48043146625394363729

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 會計學研究所 === 96 === This study attempts to examine the effect of review forms and reviewer’s preference on auditors’ performance. Brazel et al. (2004) found that under face-to-face review, which means reviewers meet the preparers and discuss review notes in person, preparers feel more accountable and concern more about audit quality. Thus, the quality of working paper is better but less efficiency. On the other hand, under electronic review, which means reviewers send review notes to preparers by e-mail and allow preparers more time to answer the questions, prepaers fell less accountable and concern more about audit efficiency. Thus, the quality of working paper is worse but more efficiency. It seems that electronic review would lower the audit quality. During these days, the responsibility of accountants is heavier. The audit quality is more and more demanded. According to Brazel et al. (2004), if we want to insure or increase audit quality, we have to take more face-to-face review, and less electronic review. However, it conflicts with the trend of the current audit environment. There may be some boundary conditions. Under the boundary conditions, electronic review may not lower audit quality and may improve audit efficiency. This study takes “reviewer’s preference” into consideration, and divided reviewer’s preference into three kinds: skepticism, credence, and unknown reviewer’s preference. We hope to find that under which reviewer’s preference, taking electronic review won’t affect audit quality but can improve audit efficiency. Also, under which reviewer’s preference, audit firms have to take face-to-face review to assure audit quality. The result of this study shows that if the reviewer’s preference is credence, electronic review can improve audit efficiency without affecting audit quality. In addition, if the reviewer’s preference is skepticism, electronic review improves audit efficiency but lower the audit quality. Taking face-to-face review can assure audit quality. Finally, if the preparer doesn’t know the reviewer’s preferce, he would tend to be more conservative. Thus, the audit quality and efficiency is like under the skepticism condition. Taking face-to-face review can assure audit quality.