پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,225 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,685 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 114,938,739 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,608,573 |
بررسی رابطۀ بین دو بُعد شکاکیت و بی‌طرفیِ تردید حرفه‌ای با قضاوت حرفه‌ای حسابرس | ||
| بررسیهای حسابداری و حسابرسی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 23، شماره 2، 1395، صفحه 173-192 اصل مقاله (525.02 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/acctgrev.2016.58465 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| جواد رجبعلی زاده1؛ رضا حصارزاده* 2؛ محمد علی باقرپور3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد حسابرسی، دانشکدۀ علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران | ||
| 2استادیار حسابداری، دانشکدۀ علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران | ||
| 3دانشیار حسابداری، دانشکدۀ علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تردید حرفه‌ای در زمرۀ مفاهیم بسیار با اهمیت حوزه حسابرسی قرار دارد، زیرا مفهوم یادشده به طور عمده‌ای بر قضاوت‌های حسابرسی اثرگذار است. هدف از انجام این پژوهش، بررسی ارتباط بین ابعاد تردید حرفه‌ای (شامل بُعد بی‌طرفی و بُعد شکاکیت) و قضاوت‌های دیرباورانۀ حسابرس می‌باشد. در این راستا، پژوهش حاضر، با بکارگیری دو سناریوی شبه آزمایشگاهی، اقدام به پیمایش نظر 97 نفر از حسابرسان شاغل در موسسات حسابرسیِ عضو جامعه حسابداران رسمی می‌نماید. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان می‌دهد که در محیط کنترلی با ریسک بالا، ارتباط بین"بی‌طرفی و قضاوت‌های دیرباورانه"، نسبت به ارتباط بین "شکاکیت و قضاوت‌های دیرباورانه" قوی‌تر است. همچنین، ارتباط بین "بی‌طرفی و قضاوت‌های دیرباورانه" در محیط کنترلی با ریسک بالا، شدت می‌یابد. با این حال، تفاوت معنی‌داری در شدت ارتباط میان "شکاکیت و قضاوت‌های دیرباورانه" در دو محیط کنترلی دارای ریسک بالا و پایین وجود ندارد. در مجموع یافته‌های مزبور، شواهد تجربی در حمایت از دیدگاه حاکم بر استانداردهای حسابرسی مبنی بر ترجیح "بُعد بی‌طرفی نسبت به بُعد شکاکیت" فراهم می‌آورد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| بی‌طرفی؛ تردید حرفه‌ای؛ ریسک محیط کنترلی؛ شکاکیت؛ قضاوت حرفه‌ای | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| An Investigation of the Relationship between Two Dimensions of Presumptive Doubt and Professional Skepticism With Professional Judgment of an Auditor | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Javad Rajab Ali Zadeh1؛ Reza Hesarzadeh2؛ Mohammad Ali Bagher Pour3 | ||
| 2Assistant Prof., Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Professional skepticism is among the most significant concepts of auditing. This is due to the fact that the mentioned concept has a profound impact on audit judgment. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between professional skepticism (including neutrality and presumptive doubt dimensions) and the auditors' skeptical judgment. To achieve the purpose of the study, 97 auditors working in auditing institutes as certified public accountants were interviewed. This was conducted employing two quasi-laboratory scenarios that mainly take from Quadackers et al. (2014). The result showed that in a high-risk control environment, the relationship between "neutrality and skeptical judgment" is stronger than the relationship between "presumptive doubt and skeptical judgment". Moreover, the relationship between "neutrality and skeptical judgment" is intensified in a high-risk control environment. However, there is no major difference in the intensity of the relationship between" presumptive doubt and skeptical judgment" in a high and low-risk control environment. Overall, the above-mentioned findings provide empirical evidence for supporting the present viewpoint on auditing standards based on the preference of "neutrality dimension" over "presumptive doubt dimension". | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| neutrality, Professional skepticism, Control environnement risk, Presumptive doubt, Professional judgment | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Berkshire: Open University Press.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2007). Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. AU Section 316. New York, NY: AICPA.
Auditing Organization, International Accounting Standards Committee. (2015). Audit standards, other assurance services and related services, 13: No 200, Par 11 & 12. (in Persian)
Beasley, M.S., Carcello, J.V. & Hermanson, D.R. (2001). Top 10 audit deficiencies. Journal of Accountancy, 191(4): 63-66.
Bell, T.B., Peecher, M.E. & Solomon, I. (2005). The 21st century public company audit: conceptual elements of KPMG’s global audit methodology. New York: KPMG LLP.
Benston, G. J. & Hartgraves, A. L. (2002). Enron: What happened and what we can learn from it. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21 (2): 105-127.
Bostanian, J & Khoshtinat, M. (2007). Professional Judgment in Auditing. Journal of Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 5 (18): 25-57. (in Persian)
Carmichael, D. R. & Craig, J. L. (1996 (. Proposal to say the ‘‘F’’ word in auditing standards. The CPA Journal, 66 (6): 22-38.
Choo, F. & Tan, K. (2000). Instruction, skepticism, and accounting students’ ability to detect frauds in auditing. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 1 (3): 72–87.
Cohen, J.R. & Hanno, D.M. (2000). Auditors’ consideration of corporate governance and management control philosophy in preplanning and planning judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19 (2): 133-146.
Cushing, B. E. (2000). Economic analysis of skepticism in an audit setting. In 14th Symposium on Auditing Research, eds. Solomon, I. And Peecher, 1-3. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Office of Accounting Research.
Das, T.K. & Teng, B. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19 (1): 85-116.
DeVellis, R.F. )2015(. Scale development: Theory and applications. Applied Social Research Methods Series. California Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Glover, S.M. & Prawitt, D. F. (2013). Enhancing Auditor Professional Skepticism. Available at: http: //www.thecaq.org/docs/research/skepticismreport.pdf.
Hoell, R. C. (2004). The effect of interpersonal trust and participativeness on union member commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19 (2): 161-177.
Hurtt, R. K. (2010). Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29 (1): 149–171.
Hurtt, R.K., Brown-Liburd, H., Earley, C.E. & Krishnamoorthy, G. (2013). Research on Auditor Professional Skepticism: Literature Synthesis and Opportunities for Future Research. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1): 45-97.
Hurtt, R. K., Eining, M. & Plumlee, D. (2012). An experimental examination of professional skepticism. Working paper. Baylor University and University of Utah.
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2012). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements. New York: IFAC.
Kadous, K. (2000). The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evaluations of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses. The Accounting Review, 75 (3): 327-341.
Lee, C., Welker, R. B. & Wang, T. (2013). An Experimental Investigation of Professional Skepticism in Audit Interviews. International Journal of Auditing, 17(2): 213-226.
Mautz, R.K. & Sharaf, H.A. (1961). The philosophy of auditing. American Accounting Association Monograph No. 6. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
McMillan, J. J. & White, R. A. (1993). Auditors’ belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation and professional skepticism. The Accounting Review, 68 (3): 443-465.
Molanazari, M & Esmaeelikia, Gh. (2014). Identify psychological traits affecting auditing skills in audit judgments. The Iranian Accounting and Auditing Review, 21 (4):505-526. (in Persian)
Nelson, M. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28 (2): 1-34.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2008). Proposed auditing standards related to the auditor’s assessment of and response to risk and conforming Amendments to PCAOB standards. PCAOB Release No. 2008-006. Stamford, CT: PCAOB.
Public Oversight Board (POB). (2000). the panel on audit effectiveness: Report and recommendations. Stamford, CT: POB.
Quadackers, L., Groot, T. & Wright, A. (2014). Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31 (3): 639-657.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4): 651-665.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35 (1): 1–7.
Sajadi, H. & Nasehi, L. (2003). Usefulness of the independent audit of financial statements. The Iranian Accounting And Auditing Review, 10 (3):65-91. (in Persian) Shaub, M.K. (1996). Trust and suspicion: The effects of situational and dispositional factors on auditors’ trust of clients. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8: 154-174.
Stack, L. C. (1978). Trust. In Dimensions of personality, eds. H. London, and J. E. Exner Jr, 561–99. New York: John Wiley & Sons. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,576 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 3,562 |
||