Reporting errors and misstatements: a measurement for the quality of auditors' work

Asian Journal of Business Ethics 3 (1):83-96 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The definition and measurement of the quality audit work has been the subject of many studies. Since the quality of auditors' work could not be observed directly except in ex post audit failures, prior researches adapted different proxies for measuring it. These proxies include firm size, reputation, auditor tenure, audit fees and other measures. This article reviews empirical studies over the past decades from all over the world in order to assess what researchers have done about measuring the quality of auditors' work. Prior measurements are classified into two main groups; direct and indirect measure of quality audit and actual quality audit versus perceptions. This article contributes to the quality audit literature by proposing new measurement, which is developed based on the quality of auditors' work definition and theory of planned behaviour.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Improving the quality of drug error reporting.Gerry Armitage, Robert Newell & John Wright - 2010 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (6):1189-1197.
Governance and the Common Good.Joseph V. Carcello - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 89 (S1):11 - 18.
The goals of health work: Quality of life, health and welfare. [REVIEW]Per-Anders Tengland - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (2):155-167.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-16

Downloads
27 (#554,860)

6 months
3 (#880,460)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?