The UA Campus Repository is experiencing systematic automated, high-volume traffic (bots). Temporary mitigation measures to address bot traffic have been put in place; however, this has resulted in restrictions on searching WITHIN collections or using sidebar filters WITHIN collections. You can still Browse by Title/Author/Year WITHIN collections. Also, you can still search at the top level of the repository (use the search box at the top of every page) and apply filters from that search level. Export of search results has also been restricted at this time. Please contact us at any time for assistance - email repository@u.library.arizona.edu.
The effect of conditioning evidence on auditors' evidence sufficiency assessments.
| dc.contributor.author | Donegan, James Joseph. | |
| dc.creator | Donegan, James Joseph. | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-10-31T18:34:43Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2011-10-31T18:34:43Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1995 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187266 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The 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. | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | The University of Arizona. | en_US |
| dc.rights | Copyright © 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. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Information science. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Psychology, Industrial. | en_US |
| dc.title | The effect of conditioning evidence on auditors' evidence sufficiency assessments. | en_US |
| dc.type | text | en_US |
| dc.type | Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) | en_US |
| dc.contributor.chair | Felix, William L. Jr. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.oclc | 706710914 | en_US |
| thesis.degree.grantor | University of Arizona | en_US |
| thesis.degree.level | doctoral | en_US |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Waller, William | en_US |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Schatzberg, Jeffrey W. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.proquest | 9603714 | en_US |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Business Administration | en_US |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Graduate College | en_US |
| thesis.degree.name | Ph.D. | en_US |
| dc.description.note | This item was digitized from a paper original and/or a microfilm copy. If you need higher-resolution images for any content in this item, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu. | |
| dc.description.admin-note | Original file replaced with corrected file October 2023. | |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-08-23T20:57:33Z | |
| html.description.abstract | The 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. |
