Auditors are encountering more and more computerized accounting applications as the pervasiveness of computing technology increases in business. Auditors, therefore, need to adapt their audit approaches in the face of the changes caused by the new technology.

The AICPA has addressed the issue by requiring auditors to consider the nature of the data processing system ln their client environments when planning the audits. Specialists, if necessary, are recommended to be brought in as part of the audit team in audits involving computerized accounting applications. The implicit assumption behind this is that the specialists would make “better” judgments in auditing computerized systems than non-specialists. A need was seen to compare the judgments of specialists and non-specialists in evaluating controls in a simple computerized environment.

The results indicate that while both specialists and non-specialists have a high degree of consensus, a significant difference existed between the two groups of auditors. Both groups of auditors exhibited high reliability and self-insights. Experienced non-specialists had lower consensus than specialists while inexperienced non-specialists had lower reliability than specialists. Firm affiliation effects were noted for the non-specialists in their consensus scores. Unlike previous studies, segregation of duties cue did not account for a majority of the variance In judgments. This cue was considered important only by the experienced non-specialists. A need was seen for further research into how the difference ln consensus affects subsequent audit program planning.