The Effect of the Review Process on Auditor Judgments

Abstract

Most public accounting firms have well-defined review procedures which require the work carried out by each auditor to be reviewed by staff with higher levels of experience (expertise). The importance of this review process is frequently emphasized in the auditing literature. Indeed, Statements on Auditing Standards (AICPA [1981, sec. 230.02]) state that the exercise of due care requires critical review at every level of supervision of the work done and the judgment exercised by those assisting in the examination. Despite the stated importance of this review process in auditing, there is little empirical evidence on its effectiveness. Previous research on auditors' judgments has primarily considered individual judgments (for example, see reviews by Libby [1981] and Ashton [1982]) although suggestions have been made to consider decisions by both interacting groups and those resulting from the review process (for example, see Joyce [1976]). A number of recent studies (Schultz and Reckers [1981], Solomon [1982], and Trotman, Yetton, and Zimmer [1983]) extended this earlier work by examining the judgments of interacting groups of auditors. However, these studies did not capture the hierarchical and sequential nature of the review process. Although in practice, the review process may take a number of forms, we adopted the procedure of having managers review seniors' work in