La influencia de las explicaciones de la dirección en la evaluación de los procedimientos analíticos de auditoría
The effect of management explanations on auditor decision processes in analytical procedures
Resumen
La aplicación de procedimientos analíticos está basada en la expectativa de que existan relaciones entre los datos contenidos en los estados contables, y proporcionan evidencia de auditoría sobre la validez, precisión e integridad de la información contable. Los auditores generan valores esperados y los comparan con los contenidos en los estados financieros. Cuando se producen discrepancias, el auditor debe generar hipótesis sobre las posibles causas, evaluarlas y elegir la más plausible. Los estándares de auditoría requieren que los auditores consulten a la dirección para encontrar explicaciones que justifiquen fluctuaciones inesperadas. Investigaciones empíricas anteriores revelan que las explicaciones de la dirección influyen en la generación de hipótesis y en los procedimientos analíticos. Este estudio experimental, basado en una fluctuación inesperada del margen bruto, es el primero alemán que investiga el efecto de las explicaciones de la dirección en las etapas de formación de hipótesis, búsqueda de información y juicios finales respecto a los procedimientos analíticos.
Descargas
Citas
[Ameen et al., 1994] Elsie C. Ameen, Jerry R. Strawser. Investigating the Use of Analytical Procedures: An Update and Extension. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory Fall, (1994), pp. S.69-S.76
[Anderson et al., 1992] John C. Anderson, Steven E. Kaplan, Philip M.J. Reckers. The Effects of Output Interference on Analytical Procedures Judgements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Fall, (1992), pp. S.1-S.13
[Anderson et al., 1995] Urton Anderson, Lisa Koonce. Explanation as a Method for Evaluating Client- Suggested Causes in Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Fall, (1995), pp. S.124-S.132
[Anderson et al., 1998] Urton Anderson, Lisa Koonce. Evaluating the Sufficiency of Causes in Auditing Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1998), pp. S.1-S.12
[Asare et al., 2000] Stephan K. Asare, Gregory M. Trompeter, Arnold M. Wright. The Effect of Accountability and Time Budgets on Auditors’ Testing Strategies. Contemporary Accounting Research, (2000), pp. 539-560
[Asare et al., 2003] Stephen K. Asare, Arnold M. Wright. A Note on the Interdependence between Hypothesis Generation and Information Search in Conducting analytical Procedures. Contemporary Accounting Research, (2003), pp. S.235-S.251
[Asare et al., 1998] Stephen K. Asare, Arnold Wright, Sally Wright. Utilizing Analytical Procedures as Substantive Evidence: The Impact of a Client Explanation on Hypothesis Testing. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research Stamford, pp. S.13-S.32
[Bedard et al., 1991b] Jean C. Bedard, Stanley F. Biggs. The Effect of Domain-Specific Experience on Evaluation of Management Representations in Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Supplement, (1991), pp. S.78-S.90
[Bierstaker et al., 1999] James L. Bierstaker, Jean C. Bedard, Stanley F. Biggs. The Role of Problem Representation Shifts in Auditor Decision Processes in Analytical Procedures. Auditing A Journal of Theory & Practice, Spring, (1999), pp. S.18-S.36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-14-228
[Biggs et al., 1984] Stanley F. Biggs, John J. Wild. A Note on the Practice of Analytical Review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1984), pp. S.68-S.79
[Church and Bryan, 1991] Bryan K. Church. An examination of the effect that commitment to hypothesis has on auditors’ evaluations confirming and disconfirming evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, (1991), pp. S.513-S.534
[Church et al., 1993] Bryan K. Church, Arnold Schneider. Auditors’ Generation of Diagnostic Hypotheses in Response to a Superior's Suggestion: Interference Effects. Contemporary Accounting Research, (1993), pp. S.333-S.350
[Coackley et al., 1985] James R. Coackley, James K. Loebbecke. The Expectation of Accounting Errors in Medium-Sized Manufacturing Firms. Advances in Accounting, (1985), pp. S.199-S.245
[Cushing et al., 1986] Barry E. Cushing, James K. Loebbecke. Comparision of Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms, Studien. Accounting Research, 26 American Accounting Association, (1986)
[Daroca et al., 1985] Frank P. Daroca, William W. Holder. The Use of Analytical Procedures in Review and Audit Engagement. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1985), pp. S.81-S.92
[Fraser et al., 1997] Ian A.M. Fraser, David J. Hatherly, Kenny Z. Lin. An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Analytical Review by External Auditors. The British Accounting Review, (1997), pp. S.35-S.47
[Gärtner and Michael, 1994] Michael Gärtner. “Analytische Prüfungshandlungen im Rahmen der Jahresabschlussprüfung: Ein Grundsatz ordnungsmäßiger Abschlussprüfung. Marburg, (1994),
[Green and Wendy, 2004] Wendy J. Green. Impact of the timing of receipt of an inherited explanation on auditor's analytical procedures judgements. Accounting and Finance, (2004), pp. S.369-S.392
[Green et al., 2008] Wendy J. Green, W.J. Green. Are industry specialists more efficient and effective in performing analytical procedures?. A multi-stage analysis, International Journal of Auditing, 12 (2008), pp. 243-260
[Green et al., 2003] Wendy J. Green, Kent T. Trotmann. An Examination of Different Performance Outcomes in an Analytical Procedures Task. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, (2003), pp. S.219-S.235
[Heiman and Vicky, 1990] Vicky B. Heiman. Auditors’ Assessments of the Likelihood of Error Explanations in Analytical Review. The Accounting Review, (1990), pp. S.875-S.890
[Hirst et al., 1996] D. Eric Hirst, Lisa Koonce. Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research, (1996), pp. S.457-S.486
[Holder and William, 1983] William W. Holder. Analytical Review Procedures in Planning the Audit: An Application Study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1983), pp. S.100-S.107
[Hylas et al., 1982] Robert E. Hylas, Robert H. Ashton. Audit Detection of Financial Statement Errors. The Accounting Review, (1982), pp. S.751-S.765
[Johnson et al., 1997] Laurence E. Johnson, Eric N. Johnson. Differences in Planning-Phase Analytical Procedures Between Municipal and Commercial Clients: Initial Evidence. Journal of Applied Business Research, 13 (1997), pp. S.37-S.45
[Kaplan et al., 1989] Steven E. Kaplan, Philip M. Reckers. An Examination of Information Search During Initial Audit Planning. Accounting, Organizations and Society, (1989), pp. S.539-S.550
[Kinney et al., 1990] William R. Kinney, Christine M. Haynes. “Analytical Procedure Results as Substantive Evidence”. Srivastava, R. (Hrsg.). Auditing Symposium X, Lawrence, (1990), pp. S.83-S.103
[Koonce and Lisa, 1992] Lisa Koonce. Explanation and Counterexplanation During Audit Analytical Review. The Accounting Review, (1992), pp. S.59-S.76
[Koonce and Lisa, 1993] Lisa Koonce. A Cognitive Characterization of Audit Analytical Review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1993), pp. S.57-S.108
[Lin et al., 2003] Kenny Z. Lin, Ian A.M. Fraser, David J. Hatherly. Auditor analytical review judgment: a performance evaluation. The British Accounting Review, (2003), pp. S.19-S.34
[Mahathevan and Premila, 1997] Premila Mahathevan. Auditors’ Use and Perception of Analytical Procedures: Evidence from Singapore. International Journal of Auditing, (1997), pp. S.225-S.239
[Major and Brenda., 1980] Brenda Major. Information Acquisition and Attribution Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1980), pp. S.1010-S.1023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.749
[Marten et al., 2006] Kai-Uwe Marten, Reiner Quick, Klaus Ruhnke. Lexikon der Wirtschaftsprüfung. Nach nationalen und internationalen Normen, (2006)
[Marten et al., 2007] Kai-Uwe Marten, Reiner Quick, Klaus Ruhnke. Wirtschaftsprüfung. Grundlagen des betriebswirtschaftlichen Prüfungswesens. Nach nationalen und internationalen Normen, (2007)
[McKeithen et al., 1981] Kathrine B. McKeithen, Judith S. Reitman, Henry H. Rueter, Stephen C. Hirtle. Knowledge organization and skill differences in computer programmers. Cognitive Psychology, (1981), pp. S.307-S.325
[Meyer et al., 1976] David E. Meyer, Roger W. Schvaneveldt. Meaning, Memory Structures and Mental Processes. Science, (1976), pp. 27-33
[Mulligan et al., 1999] Christina Mulligan, Nicola Inkster. The Use of Analytical Procedures in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Auditing, (1999), pp. S.107-S.120
[Newell et al., 1972] Allen Newell, Herbert A. Simon. Human Problem Solving. Englewoods Cliffs, (1972)
[Ng et al., 2001] Terence Bu-Peow Ng, Wendy Green, Simnett Roger. The Effects of Fraud Risk and Management Representation on Auditors’ Hypothesis Generation. ABACUS, (2001), pp. S.352-S.368
[Nickerson and Raymond, 1984] Raymond S. Nickerson. Retrieval Inhibition from Part-set Cueing: A Persisting Enigma in Memory Research. Memory and Cognition, (1984), pp. S.531-S.552
[Peterson et al., 2000] Bonita K. Peterson, Bernard Wong-On-Wing. An Examination of the Positive Test Strategy in Auditors’ Hypothesis Testing. Behavioral Research in Accounting, (2000), pp. S.257-S.277
[Smith et al., 1999] Geoffrey Smith, Jim Psaros, Scott Holmes. A Research Note on the Use and Perceived Usefulness of Analytical Procedures by Australian Auditors. Australian Accounting Review, 9 (1999), pp. S.64-S.72
[Solomon et al., 1999] Ira Solomon, Shields D. Michael, Ray O. Whittington. What do industry-specialist auditors know?. Journal of Accounting Research, (1999), pp. S.191-S.207
[Tabor et al., 1985] Richard H. Tabor, James T. Willis. Empirical Evidence on the Changing Role of Analytical Review Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1985), pp. S.93-S.109
[Taplin and Julian, 1975] Julian R. Taplin. Evaluation of Hypotheses in Concept Identification. Memory and Cognition, (1975), pp. S.85-S.96
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia (EDITUM) y ASEPUC conservan los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional. Permite copiar, distribuir e incluir el artículo en un trabajo colectivo (por ejemplo, una antología), siempre y cuando no exista una finalidad comercial, no se altere ni modifique el artículo y se cite apropiadamente el trabajo original. Esta revista no tiene tarifa por la publicación Open Access. ASEPUC y EDITUM financian los costes de producción y publicación de los manuscritos.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente la versión publicada de sus obras, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica.
