Auditor Detected Misstatements and the Effect of Information Technology

Abstract

This paper presents information on the causes and detection of misstatements by auditors and the relationship of those misstatements with information technology (IT). The last major study of misstatements and IT used data that was gathered in 1988. In the intervening period, there have been significant changes in IT, possibly altering the error generation and detection process. Two research questions related to detected misstatements and the effect of IT are examined. The six largest public accounting firms in Norway provided data from 58 engagements. We find that (1) the major causes of misstatements were missing, poorly designed, and improperly applied controls; inadequate methods used to select, train and supervise accounting personnel; and an excessive workload for accounting personnel, (2) missing and poorly designed controls, and excessive workload for accounting personnel were more likely to be causes of misstatements in computerized business processes than those that were not computerized, and (3) the increased use of tests of details over attention directing procedures on audits appears to result from auditors deciding that it is more effective or efficient to conduct such tests than rely upon IT controls. These findings have important implications for both audit practitioners and researchers.

When the world isn't always flat: The impact of psychological distance on auditors' reliance on specialists

“…Brazel and Agoglia (2007) demonstrate that auditors' AIS proficiency moderates their capability to incorporate computer audit specialists' evidence into their planned substantive testing. Brazel and Agoglia (2007) also point to studies by Messier et al (2004) and to PCAOB (2004) findings suggesting that audit engagements are increasingly characterized by amplified importance of the computer audit specialists as an evidence generating source. The emergence of this emphasis is primarily driven by increasingly complex AIS and the PCAOB's requirements pertaining to internal control assessments by external auditors.…”

An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment*

“…4 (Winter 2007) auditors with control-testing evidence relating to their clients' AIS, and auditors incorporate such evidence into their control risk assessments and subsequent testing (e.g., AICPA 2001). Client implementations of increasingly complex AIS, as well as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB's) requirement of auditor attestation to management's internal control assessment, have substantially increased the role of CAS as an evidence source on audit engagements (Messier, Eilifsen, and Austen 2004;PCAOB 2004). From 1990 to 2005, the number of CAS employed by each Big 4 firm is estimated to have grown from 100 to 5,000, and CAS testing can now represent over half of the financial statement audit work (O'Donnell, Arnold, and Sutton 2000;Bagranoff and Vendrzyk 2000).…”

Factors Associated with Audit Committee Meeting Frequency: Evidence from Kuwait

“…The Blue Ribbon Committee (1999), for example, suggested a minimum number of four meetings per year as a quantitative measure of AC's effectiveness. The number of AC meetings per year has also been used as an indicator of the effectiveness of AC's by the audit profession (e.g., KPMG, 1999;PriceWaterHouseCoopers, 1993).…”