Abstract
ABSTRACTPrior research finds that although auditors assess fraud risk accurately, they generally fail to adjust audit procedures appropriately. The most recent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections in 2016 still identify response to risks of material misstatement (RMM) as a major area of inspection focus and cite it as a recurring audit deficiency. In this study, participants assess RMM and make audit-planning judgments in a high/low fraud risk environment using either a traditional source-based representation of RMM (i.e., based on inherent, control, and fraud risk) or a newer type-based representation of RMM (i.e., based on error and fraud risk). The results indicate that while auditors in both groups show similar sensitivity to risk, the type-based group of auditors are better able modify their audit plans by using more procedures that are new to a standard audit program and assigning more experienced staff to address high fraud risk.Data Availability: Contact the author.
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.
