As noted above, AS 5 requires external auditors to evaluate the nature of the controls subjected to the work of internal auditors and others as well as their competence, objectivity and work quality (PCAOB, 2007). The risk of material misstatement of the account, the pervasiveness of the control, and the level of judgment or estimation required in the account are factors that need to be considered by auditors when evaluating the nature of controls (PCAOB, 2007). As these factors increase in significance, the need for external auditors to perform their own work also increases, thereby reducing the opportunity to rely on the work of others such as internal auditors.
Research has found that external auditors' reliance decisions are sensitive to inherent risk (e.g., [Glover et al., 2008], [Maletta, 1993] and Maletta and Kida, 1993 M.J. Maletta and T. Kida, The effect of risk factors on auditor's configural information processing, The Accounting Review (1993, July), pp. 681–691.[Maletta and Kida, 1993]). The risk conditions used in these studies apply to the client's overall situation. For example, Glover et al. (2008) operationalize inherent risk based on earnings management incentives for the company. The intent of the current study is to investigate the influence of risk of material misstatement at the account level. Because the influence of account risk may not be apparent unless the auditor is exposed to several accounts with varying levels of risk, as would be done in an actual audit situation, a within subject design is appropriate.7 Consistent with the risk-based approach in AS 5, external auditors are expected to plan less reliance on the work of internal auditors for a high-risk account than a low risk account.
H4
The external auditors' planned reliance decision on work already performed by the internal auditors will be lower for a high-risk account than for a low risk account.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
An experimental case was administered under the supervision of research proctors to 104 external auditors at a training session for one Big 4 accounting firm. Fifteen participants failed manipulation checks on the internal audit source or failed to answer the perceived litigation measure and were therefore excluded from further analysis, leaving 89 subjects.8 Participants were experienced auditors with an average of 36 months of audit experience and 19 months of in-charge audit experience supervising fieldwork (Table 1). In addition, participants reported a reasonable amount of experience in evaluating internal auditors during audit engagements, with a reported average of 3.7 on a scale anchored by 0 (not experienced) and 10 (very experienced).9 This level of experience is appropriate for the planning and evaluation tasks used in this study (Anderson, Kadous, & Koonce, 2004).10
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Variables In-house mean
(Std. dev)
n = 48 Outsourced mean
(Std. dev)
n = 41 Overall mean
(Std. dev)
n = 89
Months employed as an auditor 35.04
(16.10) 38.25
(14.86) 36.48
(15.55)
Months of in-charge audit experience 18.94
(14.57) 19.01
(12.78) 18.97
(13.71)
Self-assessed experience rating internal auditorsa 3.43
(2.71) 4.08
(2.66) 3.72
(2.69)
CPA or passed exam 55.1% 60.9% 57.8%
Highest degree
Bachelor's 61.2% 56.1% 58.9%
Masters 38.8% 43.9% 41.1%
Percentage female 53.1% 57.5% 55.1%
Full-size table
a Assessed on an 11-point scale from 0 "not experienced" to 10 "very experienced".
View Within Article
