Home⇛Business Research Journal⇛vol. 6 no. 1 (2020)

Probative Forces: Impact to sufficiency and Appropriateness of Audit Evidence

Angelica A. Baguio | Jillian J. Cichon | Khlyne P. Tolibas

 

Abstract:

An auditor’s report contains an opinion whether financial statements are free from material misstatements. These opinions are based from the conclusions derived from obtaining sufficient and appropriate audit evidence. In measuring sufficiency and appropriateness of audit evidence, the auditor’s judgment is required. Despite all of these, issues about companies whose financial statements are audited happened to have material misstatements contained in their financial statements or material fraud exists within the company. Researchers find that audit evidence is the root cause of this complication in audit environment. The researchers want to find out whether the probative forces such as: source, directness, types, academic and professional qualifications of auditors and amount of audit evidence has an impact on external auditors in obtaining sufficient and appropriate audit evidence. After the researchers found out the results, they wish to recommend some guidelines that will help audit firms to enhance the services they offer.



References:

  1. Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the Persuasive Effects of Narrative versus Statistical Messages:A Meta-Analytic Review. Communication Research Reports, 14(2). Retrieved May 11, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254264375_C omparing_the_Persuasiveness_of_Narrative_and_Statistical_Evidence_Using_ Meta-Analysis.
  2. Allen, R., Hermanson, D., Kozloski, T., & Ramsay, R. (2006). Auditor Risk Assessment: Insights from the Academic Literature. Accounting Horizon, 20(2),157-177. Retrieved from http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:434617/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  3. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (1995). The Craft of Research. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing, 2, 149. Retrieved from http://sir.spbu.ru/en/programs/master/master_program_i n_international_relations/digital_library/Book Research seminar by Booth.pdf
  4. Bentham, J. (1827). Ationale of Judicial Evidence, SpeciallyApplied to English Practice. 1. Retrieved from http://static.aston.ac.uk/asig/Gronewold_ProbativeValu e.pdf
  5. Buttle, F. (1984). Merchandising. European Journal of Marketing, 18(6), 104-123 Retrieved from https://gredos.usal.es/jspui/bitstream/10366/127989/1/D AEE_GarridoMorgadoA_Strategiesmerchandising.pdf.
  6. Caster, P., Elder, R., & Janvrin, D. (2008). A Summary of Research and Enforcement Release Evidence on Confirmation Use and Effectiveness. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 27(2), 253-279. Retrieved from https://www.virtusinterpress.org/IMG/pdf/Mohamed_Z akari_paper.pdf
  7. Caster, P., & Pincus, K. (1996). An Empirical Test of Bentham’s Theory of the Persuasiveness of Evidence. A Journal of Practice & Theory,            1-22.   Retrieved from http://static.aston.ac.uk/asig/Gronewold_ProbativeVal e.pdf
  8. Davidson, R. A. (2000, December). Differences in ethical judgments between male and female accountants. Retrieved October 28, 2017, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.1616&rep= rep1&type=pdf
  9. Davis, J. (1996). Experience and auditors’ selection of relevant information for preliminary control risk assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,
  10. https://www.univaasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978952- 476-420-9.pdf.
  11. Davoren, J. (n.d.). The Importance of Quality Evidence in Auditing. Retrieved from https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/importance-quality- evidence-auditing-
  12. Enofe, A. O., Mgbame, C., Odeyile, L. G., & Kuegbe, K. (2013). Impact of Audit
  13. Evidence on Auditor’S Report . Research Journal of Finance and Accounting,4(13), 92-96. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RJFA/article/viewFil e/7786/7930
  14. Franz, J. F., & Cataldo, L. (n.d.). Evidence-Based Practice. He Gale Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied Health. Ed. Brigham Narins, 2(3). Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://libguides.mjc.edu/EBP
  15. Goodwin, J. (1999). The     Effects of Source Integrity and Consistency of Evidence         on            Auditors’ Judgments.          Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 18(2),     1-16.                        Retrieved                   from http://buscompress.com/uploads/3/4/9/8/34980536/riber_k14-0191- 12_.pdf  Hirst, E. (1994). Auditors’ Sensitivity to Source Reliability. Journal of Accounting Research,32(1). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2491390?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
  16. Houston, R., Peters, M., & Pratt, J. (1999). The audit risk model, business risk, and audit planning decisions. 74(3). Retrieved from http://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:8931/datastream/PDF/view Imhoff, E. (n.d.). Accounting quality, auditing, and corporate governance. Accounting
  17. Horizons, 117-128. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3973/d1e8b5dbdfb6dc b41f6e5a782410d 43a25db.pdf.
  18. Kamau, O. (2012). Audit Evidence Refresher. Isaca Journal,3, 1-4.  Retrieved September            23,       2017,  from https://www.isaca.org/Journal/archives/2012/Volume- 3/Documents/12v3- Audit Evidence-Refresher.pdf.
  19. Knechel, R. W., & Steven, E. (2010). The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors’ risk assessments and mental models. 35, 316-333. Retrieved from http://www.divaportal. org/smash/get/diva2:434617/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  20. Kovner, A., Elton, J., & Billings, J. (2005). Evidence-Based Management.CreativenEducation,6(16), 3-24. Retrieved September 21, 2015, from http://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/re ference/Reference sPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1569218
  21. Kunz, G. (2009). Merchandising: Theory, principles, and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Fairchild. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s40691- 015-0039-4.pdf.
  22. Marris, D. (2010). Challenges Obtaining Audit   Evidence. Retrieved from https://www.virtusinterpress.org/IMG/pdf/Mohamed_Z akari_paper.pdf.
  23. Mautz, R., & Sharaf, H. (1961). The Philosophy of Auditing; Sarasota 1961. Seventeenth Printing 1993. Retrieved from http://static.aston.ac.uk/asig/Gronewold_Probative Value.pdf Menelaides, S. L., Graham, L. E., &
  24. Fischbach, G. (2003, June 01). The Auditor’s Approach to Fair Value. Retrieved October 15, 2017, fromhttps://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/200 3/ju /theauditorsapproachtofairvalue.html
  25. Mock, T., & Wright, A. (1993). An exploratory study of auditors’ evidential planning judgments. Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory. 12(2), 39-61Retrievedfrom https://www.univaasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978- 952-476-420-9.pdf.
  26. Morariu, A., Cercel, T., Ciocodei, G., Stoian, F., & Rotaru, H. (2008). Audit evidence –top argument for final audit opinion. Economic Sciences Series, 2(36), 501-507. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/article/aioaucsse/v_3a2_3ay_3a2008_3ai_3a11_3ap_3a501-507.htm.
  27. Niktaba, A., & Aslani, A. (2015). The effect of audit evidence on the auditor’s report. International Journal of Accounting Research, 2(6). Retrieved from https://www.arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/AC_VOL_2_6/3.pd f.
  28. Oprean, I., & Span, G. (2009). Ways of Strenghtening the Statutory Audit Efficiency. 11(1), 247-257. Retrieved from https://www.virtusinterpress.org/IMG/pdf/Mohamed_Z akari_paper.pdf.
  29. Quadackers, L., Groot, T., & Wright, A. (2009).  Auditor’s Skeptical Characteristics and Their Relationship to Skeptical Judgments and Decisions. Retrieved from https://warrington.ufl.edu/accounting/docs/2016_Paper 6.pdf.
  30. Rittenberg, L., Johnstone, K., & Gramling, A. (2009). Auditing: A Business Risk Approach. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Auditing_A_ Business_Risk_Approach. html?id=UGI0qz8svm4C&redir_esc=y.
  31. Simnett, R. (n.d.). The effect of information selection, information processing and task complexity on predictive accuracy of auditors. Accounting, Organizations and
  32. Society, 7(8), 699-719. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1911- 3838.12040.
  33. Solomon, I., & Shields, M. (1995). Judgment and decision research in auditing. 137-175. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=AzeBgAAQBA J& pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq
  34. Sterna, S. (2013). Defending third-party audit claims. Journal of Accountancy. Retrieved September 8, 2017, from https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2013/ma y/20137570.html.
  35. Stettler, H. F. (1954). Auditing Standards and Competence of Evidential Matter. The Accounting Review, 121-126. Retrieved from http://static.aston.ac.uk/asig/Gronewold_ProbativeValu e.pdf
  36. Wedmeyer, P. D. (2010). A discussion of auditor judgment as the critical component in audit quality –A practitioner’s perspective. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 320-333. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/jdg.2010. 19. pdf.
  37. Windal, F. W. (1961). Standards of Reliability for Audit Evidence. The New York Certified Public Accountant, 394-400. Retrieved from http://static.aston.ac.uk/asig/Gronewold_ProbativeValu e.pdf
  38. Zakari, M. (2014). The Role of Audit Evidence Source in Enhancing the Quality and Reliability of Libyan Auditor’s Report. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 3(1). Retrieved from http://sibresearch.org/uploads/2/7/9/9/2799227/riber_k1 4-019_1-12.pdf
  39. Zuca, S. (2015). Audit evidence – necessity to qualify a pertinent opinion. Procedia
  40. Economics and Finance. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273899345_A udit_Evidence_-Necessity_to_Qualify_a_Pertinent_Opinion.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic