Abstract
Although the audit expectation gap has been subject to substantial research over the past two decades, it remains a controversial issue for the audit profession. This study, therefore, examines the existence of an audit expectation gap in Cameroon between auditors and users (accountants, bankers, and investors), assesses the dimensions of the gap, and relates the findings to prior findings on the expectation gap. A survey questionnaire capturing fifteen semantic different belief statements on a five-point Likert scale was filled by respondents (n=365). The questionnaire addressed issues concerning auditors’ duties, and the consistency and usefulness of audits and audited statements of account. The results indicate significant evidence (α = 0.05) of an audit expectation gap concerning auditors’ accountability to prevent as well as detect fraud and to maintain the soundness of internal control systems, and issues related to auditors' objectivity and impartiality. An expectation gap was equally observed regarding auditors’ trustworthiness and whether audited statements of accounts obviously articulated the degree of guarantee and the work performed by auditors. We mainly recommend the establishment of an informative and educational platform aimed at keeping users abreast of auditors’ responsibilities. These findings serve as a critical reference point for policymakers and regulators interested in enhancing audit quality and audit reliability in Cameroon and other developing economies exhibiting similar audit regulatory and socio-economic characteristics as Cameroon. Key words: Auditing, auditors, cameroon, expectation, perception, users.
Highlights
A total of 400 questionnaires were administered through a random selection process of users(accountants, bankers, and investors), while the total population of active auditors received the questionnaire as part of the data collection process, of which 365 were returned representing a response rate of 91.25%, comprising 157 (43%) females and 209 (57%) males
Consistent with the findings of previous studies (Best et al, 2001; Desira and Baldacchino, 2005; Dixon et al, 2006; Fadzly and Ahmad, 2004; Frank et al, 2001; Haniffa and Hudaib, 2007; Lin and Chen, 2004; McEnroe and Martens, 2001; Onumah et al 2009; Olojede et al, 2020; Pourheydari and Abousaiedi, 2011; Schelluch, 1996; Siddiqui et al, 2009), this study uncovered an expectation in Cameroon mainly on the responsibilities of auditors and the reliability of audits and audited financial statements
A slight expectation gap was discovered between auditors and users, except for accountants, on the issue of auditors’ responsibility for maintaining the accounting records of an entity
Summary
The expectation gap is a contentious issue in the audit profession (Stevenson, 2019), which has been subject to substantial research over the last two decades, especially following the increasing wave of accounting scandals and corporate failures (Dennis, 2010; Gold et al, 2012; Hassink et al, 2009; Pourheydari and Abousaiedi, 2011).The expectation gap is generally considered as the variance amid what the career considers an audit to be and what shareholders consider it to be. The expectation gap is a contentious issue in the audit profession (Stevenson, 2019), which has been subject to substantial research over the last two decades, especially following the increasing wave of accounting scandals and corporate failures (Dennis, 2010; Gold et al, 2012; Hassink et al, 2009; Pourheydari and Abousaiedi, 2011). The gap in belief is diverse for all actor-control, the audit team, supervisors, as well as the investment community (Stevenson, 2019). Is a sample: in the UK (Humphrey et al, 1993; Dewing and Russel 2002), Australia (Gay and Schelluch, 1993; Schelluch and Gay, 2006), US (Schelluch, 1996; Frank et al, 2001; Almer and Brody, 2002; McEnroe and Martens, 2001), Netherlands (Hassink et al, 2009), South Africa (Gloeck and De Jager, 1993), China (Lin and Chen, 2004), UK/New Zealand (Porter et al, 2012), Egypt (Dixon et al, 2006), Malta (Desira and Baldacchino, 2005), Singapore (Best et al, 2001), Ghana (Onumah et al, 2009), Iran (Pourheydari and Abousaiedi, 2011), Malaysia (Fadzly and Ahmad, 2004), Bangladesh (Chowdhury and Innes, 1998; Chowdhury et al, 2005; Siddiqui et al, 2009), Saudi Arabia (Haniffa and Hudaib, 2007), Lebanon (Sidani, 2007), Libya (Masoud, 2017), Nigeria (Adeyemi and Uadiale, 2011; Olojede et al, 2020), and Barbados (Alleyne and Howard, 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
