| Abstract: | This dissertation examines the utilization of analytical review procedures in actual audit settings. In order to study the application of such techniques, data was collected regarding 103 audits conducted by three different "Big Eight" public accounting firms. The information was further analyzed to determine whether certain characteristics of the client, the audit situation, and the audit team affected the extent and timing of analytical review procedures. Data concerning the analytical review applied in each audit revealed a great deal of variability among audits. Little consensus was noted concerning the proportion of audit work that should be spent on analytical review or the timing of those procedures. One possible explanation for this variability is that analytical review procedures are more appropriate in certain audit situations. This study explores that possibility by collecting data on a number of factors thought to affect the utilization of analytical review procedures. These factors were isolated through a review of the literature regarding analytical review and interviews with practicing auditors. Although many of the factors were consistently supported by the literature and the auditors interviewed, few of these factors were found to actually affect the extent and timing of analytical review procedures performed. Certain constructs, however, did appear to have an effect on the utilization of analytical review. Regression analyses modeling both the extent and the timing of analytical review and probit analysis modeling the reliance upon analytical review indicated that the utilization of such procedures is more affected by characteristics of the auditors, themselves, rather than the audit situation. In particular, the training, experience, and perceptions of the auditors appear to influence the utilization of analytical review. |
|---|