The Association between Auditor Quality and Auditor Size: An Analysis of Small CPA Firms

Abstract

Prior research has documented a positive association between audit quality and auditor size. While some studies have used audit fee as a surrogate for audit quality, other studies have employed more direct measures, such as the outcomes of quality control reviews. Those latter studies, however, used samples that suffer from severe geographic or client-type restrictions. Moreover, most studies of the quality-size relationship have focused on relatively large CPA firms. The present study extends this literature by using a nationwide sample of 422 small CPA firms selected from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) Private Companies Practice Section peer review program, which provides comprehensive measures of CPA firm quality. This study also investigated (1) whether peer review ratings improve with successive reviews and (2) if oversight organization (the AICPA or state societies of CPAs) systematically affects peer review ratings. The results show that for firms that perform audits, reviews, and compilations (but not for firms that perform reviews and compilations, but no audits) auditor quality is positively associated with firm size, the number of previous reviews, and oversight by state societies. These findings suggest that (1) firm size is a useful quality surrogate only for firms that conduct audits, (2) the AICPA's peer review program has been successful in that firms improved their peer review ratings over time, and (3) state-society-sponsored reviews should be examined to assess if they are conducted with the same rigor and intensity as AICPA-sponsored reviews.