A test of the relation between audit technology and the development of expertise.

Abstract

The approach typically taken in expertise research has used audit experience as an expertise surrogate, but the nature of "experience" varies among auditors and among firms. One systematic difference in an auditor's experience is the level of "structure" incorporated into the employing firm's audit process. The schemata developed through experience with a structured audit technology may differ from an unstructured technology. It is hypothesized that when performing a task in a "typical" audit situation, auditors experienced with a more structured audit technology will demonstrate higher audit effectiveness compared with auditors who receive less structured audit technology experience. On the other hand, in "atypical" audit situations it is hypothesized that the unstructured firm's experienced auditors will perform better. The experiment used auditors from two Big Six accounting firms: a structured firm and an unstructured firm. The experimental task consisted of two cases. The "atypical" audit case was identical to the typical case except for the inclusion of fraudulent sales. The results support the prediction that in atypical audit situations experienced auditors from unstructured firms perform better than experienced auditors from structured firms. The results indicate that structured firms should consider developing training programs and procedures to ensure that auditors have compensating learning experiences and to provide quality audit service.