An Investigation of the Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review*

Abstract

Abstract. This study examines the effect of specialization at the different stages of an audit workpaper review. Auditing literature advises focusing each review level on specific kinds of errors (i.e., seniors on mechanical errors and managers on conceptual errors), rather than having seniors and managers perform successive all‐encompassing reviews. However, surveys of review practice suggest that all‐encompassing reviews are common. To determine whether specialization at different levels of review improves reviewers' overall effectiveness, this study has 35 managers and 39 seniors actually perform a review of a realistic set of workpapers. Half the subjects performed specialized reviews, whereas the other half performed all‐encompassing reviews. Overall accuracy rates in our study are consistent with prior research. In addition, the combined reviews of seniors and managers are more effective than those of either seniors or managers separately, demonstrating the benefits of hierarchical review. However, specialized review leads reviewers to be significantly less accurate than reviewers performing all‐encompassing reviews. The results suggest specialization will not automatically improve review effectiveness, and that accounting firms may need to re‐evaluate their review guidance and professional training on workpaper reviews.