Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWright, Nicole S.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-13T07:00:13Z
dc.date.available2016-01-13T07:00:13Z
dc.date.issued2014-07-21en_US
dc.identifier.othervt_gsexam:3230en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/64446
dc.description.abstractDuring an audit, if an audit team does not have sufficient knowledge when auditing a complex issue they often call upon subject matter experts to provide advice. While these experts are the knowledge experts in their area, the quality of the advice depends upon their ability to fully understand and incorporate client specific facts. PCAOB inspection reports suggest that audit teams are neglecting to perform the required work to assess the quality of experts' recommendations. Additionally, the decision to use subject matter experts can be made during planning or when a complex issue surfaces during the audit. As such, auditors may or may not be a priori aware that an expert's use is planned before auditing a complex issue. In this dissertation, I examine how receiving advice of different levels of quality in terms of whether it incorporated all relevant client facts (lower or higher), and a priori awareness of the use of a subject matter expert (aware or unaware), can impact auditors' use of the advice and the resulting effort and judgment accuracy. I conducted a computerized experiment where professional auditors read a case study and made an initial judgment around a complex issue, received advice, and then made a final judgment. Based on advice-taking literature, I predict and find support that auditors who are a priori unaware of the use of a subject matter expert will employ lower effort in understanding the client facts and thus be less discerning and more accepting of the advice received. Being a priori unaware and receiving low quality advice can lead to lower judgment accuracy than receiving high quality advice with a priori unawareness. Auditors who are a priori aware are expected to, and found to employ greater effort, thus reducing the accuracy differences between receiving high and low quality advice. These findings can help improve the professions' understanding of auditors' advice taking behavior and the conditions under which expert advice is accepted without performing the required quality assessment.en_US
dc.format.mediumETDen_US
dc.publisherVirginia Techen_US
dc.rightsThis Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. Some uses of this Item may be deemed fair and permitted by law even without permission from the rights holder(s), or the rights holder(s) may have licensed the work for use under certain conditions. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights holder(s).en_US
dc.subjectSubject Matter Expertsen_US
dc.subjectAdvice-takingen_US
dc.subjectAwarenessen_US
dc.subjectAdvice Qualityen_US
dc.subjectAudit Planningen_US
dc.titleAuditors' Use of Formal Advice from Internal Firm Subject Matter Experts: The Impact of Advice Quality and Advice Awareness on Auditors' Judgmentsen_US
dc.typeDissertationen_US
dc.contributor.departmentAccounting and Information Systemsen_US
dc.description.degreePh. D.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh. D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineAccounting and Information Systemsen_US
dc.contributor.committeechairBhattacharjee, Sudipen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberSalbador, Debra Annen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberFoti, Roseanne J.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberJenkins, James G.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberPopova, Velina K.en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record