Summary
New technologies have created the ability to review audit files in different ways. Although face-to-face review represented the more traditional format, e-review has risen in popularity because it allows several engagements to be reviewed concurrently and from remote locations, reducing traveling time and the necessity to coordinate schedules. To investigate the potential impacts of using different methods, 30 senior-level auditors were asked to complete a preliminary going-concern analysis for a hypothetical client. As expected, preparers anticipating a face-to-face review did feel more accountable to their reviewers than did those anticipating an e-review. While both groups are likely concerned with audit effectiveness, auditors anticipating a face-to-face review appeared to be relatively more concerned with their effectiveness. On the other hand, e-review auditors seemed to be more concerned about staying within their time budgets. A way to avoid the downsides of each review method might be to combine the two techniques.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Review Methods Matter
New technologies have created the ability to review audit files in different ways. While a traditional form of review involves an auditor (preparer) and a reviewer meeting to discuss the reviewer's concerns in a face-toface review, today audit documentation is often prepared online and accessed electronically. The evolution of alternative methods, such as an e-review, raises questions: Does the review method affect the performance of the preparers anticipating th...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
