請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/38011
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 杜榮瑞 | |
dc.contributor.author | Jung-Ling Liao | en |
dc.contributor.author | 廖容翎 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T15:56:25Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-06-24 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-06-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-06-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. 陳怡婷(民 91),解釋責任、核閱者立場與審計工作對審計判斷影響之
研究,國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文 2. Ashton, R. 1990. Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effect of incentives, feedback, and justification. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 148-180. 3. Brazel, J. F., C. P. Agoglia, and R. C. Hatfield. 2004. Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors’ performance. The Accounting Review. Vol. 79, No. 4, 949-966 4. Cialdini, R. B., A. Levy, C. P. Herman, L. T. Kozlowski, and R. E. Petty. 1976. Elastic shifts of opinion: Determinants of direction and durability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 34, No. 4, 663-672 5. Duh, R.-R., C. J. Chang, and E. Chen. 2006. Accountability, task characteristics and audit judgments. The International Journal of Accounting Studies. Special Issue, 51-75. 6. Fedor, D. B., and R. J. Ramsay. 2007. Effects of supervisor power on preparers' responses to audit review: A field study. Behavioral Research in Accounting. Vol. 19, 91-105. 7. Glover, S. 1997. The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Autumn): 213-226. 8. Hoffman, V. B., and J. M. Patton. 1997. Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 227-237. 9. Janvrin, D., J. Bierstaker, and D. J. Lowe. 2008. An examination of audit information technology use and perceived importance. Accounting Horizons. (March): Vol. 22, No. 1, 1-21 10. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (Autumn): 231-245 11. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Autumn): 369-384. 12. Lerner, J. S., and P. E. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for effects of accountability. Psychological Bulleun. Vol.125, No.2 : 255-275 13. Lord, A. T. 1992. Pressure: A methodological consideration for behavioral research in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 89-108. 14. Favere-Marchesi, M. 2006. Audit review: The impact of discussion timing and familiarity. Behavioral Research In Accounting. Vol. 28, 53-64. 15. Nelson, M., and H.-T. Tan. 2005. Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol. 24,(Supplement): 41-71. 16. Peecher, M. E. 1996. The influence of auditors’ justification process on their decisions: A cognitive model and experiment evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (Spring): 125-140 17. Sim, J., and C. C. Wright. 2005. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, Vol. 85, No. 3.(Mar.): 257-268 18. Simonson, I., and P. Nye. 1992. The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51, 416-446. 19. Slovic, P., A. Tversky, and D. Kahneman. 1990. The cause of preference reversal. The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 1. (Mar.): 204-217. 20. Tan, H.-T., T. B.-P. Ng, and B. W.-Y. Mak. 2002. The effects of task complexity on auditors’ performance: The impact of accountability and knowledge. Auditing: A Journal of Practice&Theory, Vol.21, No.2(September): 81-95 21. Tetlock, P. E. 1983a. Accountability and the complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (July): 74-83 22. ──. 1983b. Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. Social Psychology Quarterly (December): 285-292. 23. ──. 1985. Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly (December) : 227-236 24. ──., and J. L. Kim. 1987. Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (April): 700-709. 25. ──, L. Skitka, and R. Boettger. 1989. Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (October): 632-640. 26. ──, and R. Boettger. 1989. Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (September): 388-398 27. Turner, C. W. 2001. Accountability demands and the auditor’s evidence search strategy: The influence of reviewer preferences and the nature of the response (belief vs. action). Journal of Accounting Research (December): 683-706 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/38011 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究在探討核閱方式及核閱者立場對查核工作績效的影響。
Brazel et al.(2004)指出,面對面核閱下,核閱者會當面告知查核人員核閱結果,且查核人員需即時回答核閱者的問題,此時,工作底稿品質較好,但執行查核工作時間較長,查核效率較低,反之,電子核閱下,核閱者與查核人員間的聯繫皆透過電子郵件,且查核人員不須即時回答核閱者問題,此時,工作底稿品質較差,但執行查核工作時間較長,查核效率較高。由此可知,核閱程序電子化的結果,似乎無法增進查核品質,在今日會計師責任日益加重、越來越重視查核品質的時代,似乎應減少電子化的核閱程序,但此舉與今日審計趨勢相矛盾,因此,是不是在某些情形下,電子化的核閱程序能夠在不影響查核品質的前提下,提升查核效率?本研究將「核閱者立場」加入探討範圍,將核閱者立場分為「傾向懷疑受查客戶」、「傾向信任受查客戶」、「未知核閱者立場」三種,探討在何種核閱者立場下,採用電子核閱能提升查核效率且不影響查核品質,而在何種核閱者立場下,需採用傳統面對面核閱的方式,方能確保或提升查核品質。 研究結果發現,在核閱者傾向信任受查客戶的情形下,電子核閱能提升查核效率,且不影響工作底稿的品質;在核閱者傾向懷疑受查客戶的情形下,電子核閱縱然可提升查核效率,但卻會導致工作底稿品質的下降,面對面核閱方能確保或提升查核品質;在未知核閱者傾向的情況下,查核人員的態度會趨於保守謹慎,因此情況與核閱者傾向受查客戶者雷同,此時採取面對面核閱的方式,方能確保或提升查核品質。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study attempts to examine the effect of review forms and reviewer’s preference on auditors’ performance.
Brazel et al. (2004) found that under face-to-face review, which means reviewers meet the preparers and discuss review notes in person, preparers feel more accountable and concern more about audit quality. Thus, the quality of working paper is better but less efficiency. On the other hand, under electronic review, which means reviewers send review notes to preparers by e-mail and allow preparers more time to answer the questions, prepaers fell less accountable and concern more about audit efficiency. Thus, the quality of working paper is worse but more efficiency. It seems that electronic review would lower the audit quality. During these days, the responsibility of accountants is heavier. The audit quality is more and more demanded. According to Brazel et al. (2004), if we want to insure or increase audit quality, we have to take more face-to-face review, and less electronic review. However, it conflicts with the trend of the current audit environment. There may be some boundary conditions. Under the boundary conditions, electronic review may not lower audit quality and may improve audit efficiency. This study takes “reviewer’s preference” into consideration, and divided reviewer’s preference into three kinds: skepticism, credence, and unknown reviewer’s preference. We hope to find that under which reviewer’s preference, taking electronic review won’t affect audit quality but can improve audit efficiency. Also, under which reviewer’s preference, audit firms have to take face-to-face review to assure audit quality. The result of this study shows that if the reviewer’s preference is credence, electronic review can improve audit efficiency without affecting audit quality. In addition, if the reviewer’s preference is skepticism, electronic review improves audit efficiency but lower the audit quality. Taking face-to-face review can assure audit quality. Finally, if the preparer doesn’t know the reviewer’s preferce, he would tend to be more conservative. Thus, the audit quality and efficiency is like under the skepticism condition. Taking face-to-face review can assure audit quality. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T15:56:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R95722010-1.pdf: 545229 bytes, checksum: 3b94cbc43b1bc10b5f19526d2d176852 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
中文摘要 ii 英文摘要 iii 目錄 iv 圖表目錄 vi 第一章 緒 論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究問題 3 第三節 論文結構及研究過程 3 第二章 文獻探討與研究假設 5 第一節 解釋責任 5 第二節 研究假設 21 第三章 研究方法 27 第一節 研究變數 27 第二節 實驗材料與工作 30 第三節 受試者 36 第四節 實驗程序 40 第五節 統計分析方法 43 第四章 研究結果與分析 44 第一節 操弄檢查 44 第二節 敘述統計 47 第三節 假設檢定 50 第五章 結論、研究限制與未來研究建議 68 第一節 結 論 69 第二節 研究限制 72 第三節 未來研究建議 73 參考文獻 74 附錄 77 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 核閱方式及核閱者立場對查核工作績效之影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Effects of Review Forms and Reviewer's Perference on Auditors' Performance | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 顏信輝,高泉豐 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 解釋責任,核閱方式,核閱者立場,查核工作績效, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Accountability,Audit Forms,Audit Performance, | en |
dc.relation.page | 104 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-06-12 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 會計學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 532.45 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。