核閱方式及核閱者立場對查核工作績效之影響

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。

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.