تعداد نشریات | 50 |
تعداد شمارهها | 2,232 |
تعداد مقالات | 20,476 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 25,282,258 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 22,934,592 |
قضاوت حرفه ای در حسابرسی و اندازه گیری آن: مفاهیم، نظریه ها و چشم انداز تئوریک | ||
دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت | ||
مقاله 11، دوره 8، شماره 31، مهر 1398، صفحه 155-168 اصل مقاله (478.23 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
نویسندگان | ||
سید علی حسینی 1؛ ندا رسولی2 | ||
1استادیار گروه حسابداری دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی دانشگاه الزهرا(س) (نویسنده مسئول) | ||
2دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی دانشگاه الزهرا(س) | ||
چکیده | ||
قضاوت حرفهای مهارتی کلیدی در حرفه حسابداری و حسابرسی بخصوص در شرایط استفاده از استانداردهای حسابداری مبتنی بر اصول است و افراد فعال در حرفه از جمله مدیران، حسابرسان، تحلیلگران مالی، حسابداران و استانداردگذاران، بر اساس قضاوتها اقدام به تصمیمگیریهای اساسی مینمایند. اما انجام قضاوت دشوار است و توانایی در انجام قضاوتهای خوب سنگ بنای حرفه حسابداری است. با توجه به اهمیت موضوع قضاوت در حرفه حسابداری و به ویژه حسابرسی و ضرورت تحقیق در این حوزه، مقاله حاضر تجزیه و تحلیلی تئوریک از ادبیات قضاوت حرفهای در حسابرسی و روش اندازهگیری آن ارائه میدهد و در نهایت پیشنهاداتی برای تحقیقات آتی در حوزه قضاوت حرفهای در حسابرسی ارائه مینماید. پژوهش حاضر به لحاظ ماهیتی اکتشافی است که برای انجام آن از روش کیفی فراترکیب[i] استفاده شده است. مطابق با بررسی تحقیقات انجام شده، مطالعات صورت گرفته در خصوص قضاوت، عوامل تعیین کننده و اثر گذار بر قضاوت را در سه حوزه شامل متغیرهای شخصیتی(شامل دانش، تجربه،پردازش اطلاعات، ابزارهای کمک به تصمیمگیری و باورهای قبلی)، متغیرهای کاری(شامل شکا ارائه، پیچیدگی کار و ریسک) و متغیرهای محیطی(شامل حاکمیت شرکتی و کنترل داخلی، فشار زمانی، فرایند پردازش اطلاعات به شکل گروهی در مقابل پردازش فردی، حسابدهی) طبقهبندی نمودند که هر سه حوزه اجزای جدایی ناپذیر از قضاوت هستند و درنظر گرفتن همه عوامل در بررسی کیفیت قضاوت ضروری میباشد. [i] Meta-synthesis | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
قضاوت حرفه ای؛ عوامل محیطی؛ عوامل کاری؛ عوامل شخصیتی؛ اندازه گیری | ||
مراجع | ||
* A professional judgment framework for financial reporting An international guide for preparers, auditors, regulators and standard setters. 2012 ,ICAS * Abdolmohammadi and Wright, 1987. J. Abdolmohammadi, D. Wright An examination of the effects of experience and task complexity on audit judgment Accounting Review, 62 (1) (1987), pp. 1-13 * Abbott, L. J., S. Parker, and G. F. Peters. 2006. Earnings management, litigation risk, and asymmetric audit fee responses. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 25 (1) * Abdolmohammadi, M., and A. Wright. 1987. An examination of the effects of experience and task complexity on audit judgments. The Accounting Review 62 (1) * Altman, E. I., 1968, The prediction of corporate bankruptcy: a discriminant analysis, The Journal of Finance 23, 193–194. * Anderson R., S. Mansi, and D. Reeb. 2004. Board characteristics, accounting report integrity, and the cost of debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics 37 (3) * Anderson, n.1970, functional measurement and psychophysical judgment, psychological review vol. 77, no. 3 * Bagley, P. L. 2010. Negative affect: A consequence of multiple accountabilities in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (2) * Anderson, M. J., 1988, A comparative analysis of information search and evaluation behavior of professional and non-professional financial analysts, Accounting, Organizations and Society 13, 431–446. * Bedard, J. C., and L. E. Graham. 2002. The effects of decision aid orientation on risk factor identification and audit test planning. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21 (2) * Benson, P. J. 1984. Writing visually: Design considerations in technical publications. Technical Communications 32 (4) * Bonner S. E., R. Libby, and M. W. Nelson. 1996. Using decision aids to improve auditors’ conditional probability judgments. The Accounting Review 71 (2) * Bonner, S. E, and B. L. Lewis. 1990. Determinants of auditor expertise. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (3) * Bonner, S. E. 1999. Commentary—judgment and decision making research in accounting. Accounting Horizons 13 (4) * Bonner, S. E. 2008. Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall * Bonner.S 2008. Judgment and decision making in accounting. * Brown, C. E., and I. Solomon, 1991, Configural information processing in auditing: the role of domain-specific knowledge, The Accounting Review 66, 100–119. * Butler, S. A., 1985, Application of a decision aid in the judgmental evaluation of substantive test of details samples, Journal of Accounting Research 23, 513–526. * Butt, J. L., and T. I. Campbell, 1989, The effects of information order and hypothesistesting strategies on auditors’ judgments, Accounting, Organizations and Society 14, 471–479. * Casterella, J. R., K. L. Jensen, and W. R. Knechel. 2010. Litigation risk and audit firm characteristics. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (2) * Clor-Proell, S. M. 2009. The effects of expected and actual accounting choices on judgment and decisions. The Accounting Review 84 (5) * DeZoort, F. T., and S. E. Salterio. 2001. The effects of corporate governance experience and financial reporting and audit knowledge on audit committee members’ judgments. Auditing, A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (2) * DeZoort, T., P. Harrison, and M. Taylor. 2006. Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (4-5) * Frederick, D. M., Heiman-HoVman, V. B., & Libby, R. 1994. The structure of auditors’ knowledge of Wnancial statement errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 13, 1–21. * Frederickson, J. R., S. A. Peffer, and J. Pratt, 1999, Performance evaluation judgments: effects of prior experience under different performance evaluation schemes and feedback frequencies, Journal of Accounting Research 37, 151–165. * F Choo, KT Trotman. 1991. The relationship between knowledge structure and judgments for experienced and inexperienced auditors. Accounting Review. * Jane L. Butt. 1988. Frequency Judgments in an Auditing-Related Task. Journal of Accounting Research Vol. 26, No. 2 (1988) * Haron, H. 2014. Factors influencing ethical judgement of auditors in Malaysia. Malaysian Accounting Review, 13 (2). * Hoffman, V. B., J. R. Joe, and D. V. Moser. 2003. The effect of constrained processing on auditors’ judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (7-8) * Hooper, C., and K. T. Trotman. 1996. Configural information processing in auditing: Further evidence. Accounting and Business Research 26 (2): 125–36. * Guidance on Professional Judgment for CPAs(Released by The Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants on March 26, 2015) * Kadous K., L. Koonce, and K. Towry. 2005. Quantification and persuasion in managerial judgement. Contemporary Accounting Research 22 (3) * Kadous, K., A. M. Magro, and B. C. Spilker. 2008. Do effects of client preference on accounting professionals’ information search and subsequent judgments persist with high practice risk? The Accounting Review 83 (1). * Kaplan, S. E., and P. M. J. Reckers, 1985, An examination of auditor performance evaluation, The Accounting Review 60, 477–487. * Kelly, K. O., 2007, Feedback and incentives on nonfinancial value drivers: effects on managerial decision making, Contemporary Accounting Research 24, 523–556. * Kummer,T. Schmit,M. 2016. The Influence of National Culture on Judgment and Decision Making in the Application of IFRS – Evidence from Fair Value Measurements Griffith University, ESCP Europe, Berlin * Lehmann, C. M., and C. S. Norman. 2006. The effects of experience on complex problem representation and judgment in auditing: An experimental investigation. Behavioral Research in Accounting 18 (1) * Libby, R., and J. Luft, 1993, Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment, Accounting, Organizations and Society 18, 425–450. * McDaniel, L. S., 1990, The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance, Journal of Accounting Research 28, 267–285. * Maines, L. A., and L. S. McDaniel, 2000, Effects of comprehensive income characteristics on nonprofessional investors’ judgments: the role of financial-statement presentation format, The Accounting Review 75, 179. * Messier, W. F., Jr., 1995, Research in and development of audit decision aids: a review, in: R. H. Ashton, A. H. Ashton, eds., Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing (Cambridge University Press, New York), 205–228. * Moreno, K. K., S. Bhattacharjee, and D. M. Brandon, 2007, The effectiveness of alternative training techniques on analytical procedures performance, Contemporary Accounting Research 24, 983–1014. * Nelson.m. , Hun Tong Tan. 2005. Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Interaction Perspective. A Journal of Practice & Theory. * Pillar, B. 2005. Audit quality in the 21st century. Presentation at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. * Plous. S. 1993. The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill Education * Rajni.M.2014. Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective, Accounting Perspectives 14(1) * Sarah E. Bonner and Paul L. Walker. 1994. The Effects of Instruction and Experience on the Acquisition of Auditing Knowledge. The Accounting Review Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1994) * The Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants , 2015. Guidance on Professional Judgment for CPAs * Trotman, K. T., and P. W. Yetton, 1985, The effect of the review process on auditor judgments, Journal of Accounting Research 23, 256–267. * Trotman, K. T. 2006. Professional Judgment: Are Auditors being Held to a Higher Standard Than Other Professionals? Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia. * Trotman, K. T., H. C. Tan, and N. Ang. 2011. Fifty-year overview of judgment and decision making research in accounting. Accounting and Finance 51 (1) * Waller, W. S., and W. L. Felix Jr. 1984. The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 9 (3) Wright, A. 1988. The impact of prior working papers on auditor evidential planning judgments. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,506 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,482 |