Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The Background of Professional Judgment in Statutory Audit



According to a recent doctoral thesis, the issues of the professional judgment, known in the international literature as “judgment and decision–making process” have an inter-disciplinary character, being treated in such domains as psychology, medicine, law and accounting. The professional approach to this process offers a high level of complexity, which is also revealed by the large number of research papers from the specialized literature. This highlights the diversity of the factors that contribute to the substantiation of the professional judgment and of the decision making process.

The thesis continues this research, focusing on the auditing-accounting activity area. Accordingly, it studies the notion of professional judgment seen both as a general concept and as a multi-professional perspective, in order to be able to identify the general elements that define and characterize the process of the professional judgment. The most discussed subjects refer to the wide range of factors that contribute to the reasoning realization or to the divergent opinions regarding the approach based on principles or rules. The application of a professional reasoning which starts from well defined principles offers a broader scope for auditors to apply their experience, knowledge and abilities acquired over time, while constraining the activity in a set of strict rules that encompass the perspective of a diversified approach to the problems that professionals face.

To learn more, refer to the 2012 thesis on “The Background of Professional Judgment in Statutory Audit” by Phd Student Georgeta Ancuţa Șpan, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, Department of Accounting and Auditing, Babeș-Bolyai University.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates



A recently published research paper notes that “Auditors experience significant problems auditing complex accounting estimates and this increasingly puts financial reporting quality at risk. Based on analyses of the specific errors that auditors commit, we propose that auditors need to be able to think more broadly and incorporate information from a variety of sources in order to improve audit quality for these important accounts.”



The research tries to experimentally demonstrate that a deliberative mindset intervention improves auditors’ ability to identify unreasonable estimates by improving their ability to identify and incorporate into their analyses contradictory information from diverse parts of the audit and improving their ability to think critically about the evidence. Additional analyses are performed to demonstrate that such intervention improves auditor performance by causing them to think differently, rather than simply to work harder.

The paper demonstrates that critical thinking can improve the identification of unreasonable estimates and, in doing so, provide new directions for addressing audit quality issues. For more information, refer to the article “Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates” by Emily E. Griffith, Jacqueline S. Hammersley, Kathryn Kadous and Donald Young in the Journal of Accounting Research (Vol. 53, No. 1, March 2015).