Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Auditing Quality: Some Empirical Studies

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Eurasian Business Perspectives

Part of the book series: Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics ((EBES,volume 8/1))

  • 852 Accesses

Abstract

Much has been written on audit quality, but there are still many differences in the literature. After two decades of research on audit quality, there is no universally accepted definition by researchers, who are still far from the establishment of a single framework of indicators which determine, unequivocally, whether the activity of statutory auditor has taken place according to the guidelines set forth in the applicable standards. Various definitions have been developed that are based on different approaches. Importantly, it is a topic in continuous evolution and the debate in the literature is now very open. It seems clear that the concept of audit quality has become, over the years, more and more important as a growing need was felt to ensure the truth and accuracy of the data contained in financial statements, ensuring the quality of financial information by transmitting confidence in this way to the markets and stakeholders who, in making decisions, legitimately rely on accounting records. In this paper, the definitions of quality that the literature has developed over the years will be presented and issues will be addressed related to the measurement of quality through proxies that researchers have used. Finally, the possible future studies to make further contributions to research will be briefly analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arnett, H., & Danos, P. (1979). CPA firm viability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asthana, S., & Bonne, J. (2012). Abnormal audit fee and audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(3), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsam, S., Krishnan, J., & Yang, J. S. (2003). Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality. Auditing, 22(2), 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baotham, S. (2009). Audit independence, quality and credibility: Effect on reputation and sustainable success of CPAs in Thailand. International Journal and Business Research, 9(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, C. L., Defond, M. L., Jiambalvo, J., & Subramanyam, K. R. (1998). The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn, B. K., Choi, J., & Kang, T. (2008). Audit quality and properties of analyst earnings forecasts. Accounting Review, 83(2), 327–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bing, J. (Jimmy), Huang, C. X., Li, A. (Linda), & Zhu, X. (Lydia). 2014. Audit quality research report. Australian National Centre for Audit and Assurance, 1(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breesch, D., & Branson, J. (2009). The effects of auditor gender on audit quality. IUP Journal of Accounting Research & Audit Practices, 8(3), 78–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, B., Cripe, B., Martin, G., & McAllister, B. (2012). Audit quality and the trade-off between accretive stock repurchases and accrual-based earnings management. The Accounting Review, 87(6), 1861–1884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameran, M., Prencipe, A., & Trombetta, M. (2014). Mandatory audit firm rotation and audit quality. European Accounting Review, 1(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcello, J. V., & Nagy, A. L. (2004). Client size, auditor specialization and fraudulent financial reporting. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(5), 651–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Huss, F. H. (1995). Temporal changes in bankruptcy-related reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14, 133–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, P., & Simnett, R. (2006). Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 81(3), 653–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadegani, A. A. (2011). Review of studies on audit quality. International Conference on Humanities Society and Culture, 20(1), 312–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. C., & Watson, J. (2011). Voluntary disclosure of segment information in a regulated environment: Australian evidence. Eurasian Business Review, 1(1), 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. Y., Lin, C. J., & Lin, Y. C. (2008). Audit partner tenure, audit firm tenure, and discretionary accruals: Does long auditor tenure impair earnings quality? Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(2), 415–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Chen, J. Z., Lobo, G. J., & Wang, Y. (2011). Effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital: Evidence from China. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(3), 892–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, W., Huang, H., Liao, Y., & Xie, H. (2009). Mandatory audit partner rotation, audit quality, and market perception: Evidence from Taiwan. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(2), 359–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. H., Kim, C., Kim, J. B., & Zang, Y. (2010). Audit office size, audit quality, and audit pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, L., Mathieu, R., & Mbagwu, C. (2013). Audit quality and banks’ assessment of disclosed accounting information. European Accounting Review, 22(4), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M. (2000). Auditor quality and the accuracy of management earnings forecasts. Contemporary Accounting Research, 17(4), 595–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinch, G., Stokes, D. J., & Zhu, T. (2010). Audit quality and information asymmetry between traders. Accounting & Finance, 35(3), 743–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coram, P., Ng, J., & Woodliff, D. R. (2003). A survey of time budget pressure and reduced audit quality among Australian auditors. Australian Accounting Review, 13(1), 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Angelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 3(3), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de las Heras, E., Cañibano, L., & Moreira, J. A. (2012). The impact of the spanish financial act (44/2002) on audit quality. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 41(156), 521–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., & Sweeney, A. P. (1995). Detecting earnings management. Accounting Review, 70(2), 193–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFond, M. L., & Lennox, C. S. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2), 275–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duff, A. (2004). Auditqual: Dimensions of audit quality (Vol. 1(1), pp. 1–168). Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettredge, M., Heintz, J., Li, C., & Scholz, S. (2011). Auditor realignments accompanying implementation of SOX 404 reporting requirements. Accounting Horizons, 25(1), 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. R. (2004). What do we know about audit quality? British Accounting Review, 36(1), 345–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. R., & Wang, D. (2008). The joint effect of investor protection and big 4 audits on earnings quality around the world. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(1), 157–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1521–1552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. R., Michas, P. N., & Seavey, S. E. (2011). Does audit market concentration harm the quality of audited earnings? Evidence from audit markets in 42 countries. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(1), 325–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, M. A., & Raghunandan, K. (2002). Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing, 21(1), 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, M. A., & Rama, D. V. (2006). Audit firm size and going concern reporting accuracy. Accounting Horizons, 20(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, A., & Moon, D. (2005). Auditor tenure and perceptions of audit quality. The Accounting Review, 80(2), 585–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunny, K. A., & Zhang, T. C. (2013). PCAOB inspection reports and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(1), 136–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakim, F., & Omri, A. (2010). Quality of the external auditor, information asymmetry, and bid-ask spread. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 18(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrbach, O. (2001). Audit quality, auditor behavior, and the psychological contract. European Accounting Review, 10(4), 787–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoitash, R., Markelevich, A., & Barragato, C. A. (2007). Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(8), 761–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAASB. (2011). Audit quality. An IAASB perspective. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, 1(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, A. B., Moldrich, M., & Roebuck, P. (2008). Mandatory audit firm rotation and audit quality. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(5), 420–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamal, K., & Sunder, S. (2011). Is mandated independence necessary for audit quality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(4), 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanagaretnam, K., Krishnan, G., & Lobo, G. J. (2009). Is the market valuation of banks’ loan loss provision conditional on auditor reputation? Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(6), 1039–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanagaretnam, K., Krishnan, G. V., Lobo, G. J., & Mathieu, R. (2011). Audit quality and the market valuation of banks’ allowance for loan losses. Accounting Perspectives, 10(3), 161–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, K., Rajgopal, S., & Srinivasan, S. (2013). Non-audit services and financial reporting quality: Evidence from 1978 to 1980. Review of Accounting Studies, 18(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, G. V. (2003). Audit quality and the pricing of discretionary accruals. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A., Minutti-Meza, M., & Zhang, P. (2011). Can big 4 versus non-big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? The Accounting Review, 86(1), 259–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. Y., Ding, D. K., & Charoenwong, C. (2013). Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 41(1), 343–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Stokes, D. J., Taylor, S. L., & Wong, L. (2009). Audit quality, accounting attributes and the cost of equity capital (Vol. 1(1), pp. 1–32). Working Paper, Monash University

    Google Scholar 

  • Maijoor, S. J., & Vanstraelen, A. (2006). Earnings management within Europe: The effects of member state audit environment, audit firm quality, and international capital markets. Accounting and Business Research, 36(1), 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, C. F., & Roberts, R. W. (1996). Factors associated with the incidence of reduced audit quality behaviors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 15(2), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manita, R., & Elommal, N. (2010). The quality of audit process: An empirical study with audit committees. International Journal of Business, 15(1), 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansouri, A., Pirayesh, R., & Salehi, M. (2009). Audit competence and audit quality: case in emerging economy. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(2), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memis, M. U., & Cetenak, E. H. (2012). Earnings management, audit quality and legal environment: an international comparison. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 28(4), 460–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, K., & Williams, D. D. (2004). Former audit partners and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 1095–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minutti-Meza, M. (2013). Does auditor industry specialization improve audit quality? Journal of Accounting Research, 51(4), 779–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmrose, Z. (1988). An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 64(1), 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayburn, J. M., & Rayburn, L. G. (1996). Relationship between machiavellianism and type a personality and ethical-orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(1), 1209–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, P. C. (2002). The effect of industry specialization on audit quality: An examination using bid-ask spreads. Journal of Accounting and Finance Research, 10(1), 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, M. S., Solomon, I., & Vickrey, D. (1986). Audit quality: The perceptions of audit-committee. Chairpersons and audit partners. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 5(2), 86–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. J., & Srinivasan, S. (2012). Audit quality and auditor reputation: Evidence from Japan. The Accounting Review, 87(5), 1737–1765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soprani, A. (2015). La significatività nel lavoro di revisione legale [The significance in the statutory audit work]. Euroconference News, 18(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J., & Liu, G. (2011). Industry specialist auditors, outsider directors, and financial analysts. Journal of Accounting Public Policy, 30(1), 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svanström, T. (2013). Non-audit services and audit quality: Evidence from private firms. European Accounting Review, 22(2), 337–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talamona, T., Azzali, S., & Mazza, T. (2013). L’influenza della Corporate Governance sull’audit quality [The influence of the Corporate Governance on the audit quality]. Business and Management Sciences International Quarterly Review, 1(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepalagul, N., & Lin, L. (2015). Auditor independence and audit quality: A literature review. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 30(1), 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titman, S., & Trueman, B. (1986). Information quality and the valuation of new issues. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 8(2), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, A. L., Hillison, W., & Morecroft, S. E. (2004). Audit quality: A synthesis of theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Accounting Literature, 23(1), 153–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooten, T. C. (2003). Research about audit quality. CPA Journal, 73(1), 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasina, F. M., & Nelson, S. P. (2012). Audit committee and internal audit: An implication for audit quality. International Journal of Economics, Management and Accounting, 20(2), 187–218.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Economics and Law, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy

    Maurizio Rija

Authors
  1. Maurizio Rija
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurizio Rija .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Political Sciences, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin

  2. MUFG Union Bank, San Francisco, California, USA

    Hakan Danis

  3. Faculty of Tourism, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ender Demir

  4. Eurasia Business & Economic Society, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ugur Can

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Rija, M. (2018). Auditing Quality: Some Empirical Studies. In: Bilgin, M., Danis, H., Demir, E., Can, U. (eds) Eurasian Business Perspectives. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 8/1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67913-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation