Auditor analytical review judgement: A performance evaluation

Abstract

This study provides experimental evidence on several important measures for evaluating the performance of auditor judgement in an analytical review (AR) context. The results of the study suggest that UK auditors demonstrated only moderate level of judgement performance, as measured by consensus, consistency, and self-insight. Contrary to what might be expected, the study did not find that auditors from larger firms exhibited relatively greater consensus. In order to identify experience effects the paper employs the 'expertise paradigm' [Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (1993) 425]. Significant experience effects were identified implying that auditor judgement performance might be improved if less straightforward judgements were to be made by more senior auditors than is currently the case. The results of the study may have implications for both the cost structures and staffing policies of audit firms.