The effect of conditioning evidence on auditors' evidence sufficiency assessments.
AuthorDonegan, James Joseph.
Committee ChairFelix, William L. Jr.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractThe auditor's report (AICPA 1988) generally contains two statements of belief. The first is an opinion as to whether the financial statements examined are free of material misstatement. The second is an assertion that the audit provides a reasonable basis for the opinion expressed. If the auditor judges the examination to have been inadequate, then the report should either be suitably qualified or no opinion offered. Evaluating the sufficiency of evidence obtained is thus an important part of the auditor's task. Considerable research exists describing auditor knowledge of error frequencies and causes, as well as the cognitive factors that affect error judgments. In comparison, less is known about evidence sufficiency judgments and their impact on the opinion formulation process. This monograph: (1) further examines the relationship between audit risk and evidence sufficiency judgments first hypothesized by Waller and Felix (1984); and (2) reports an experiment which investigates the effect of consistent and inconsistent conditioning evidence on the revision of evidence sufficiency assessments. The results suggest that conditioning evidence increases sufficiency assessments, except when unexpected audit differences are discovered.
Degree ProgramBusiness Administration