ISSN: 2225-8329
Open access
Despite the definition of the concept of logical confidence in auditing standards, the results from some studies conducted indicate a meaningful difference between perceptions this basic concept, by different auditors (Law, 2008, 180). The results from some researches also indicate that auditors’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the audit risk model vary (which is based on auditing general principles on the basis of risk) (Arense, 2006, 148). In so doing, aiming at studying the proof for the above, mentioned hypotheses Iran’s auditing setting; in this article we will study Iranian auditors’ perceptions of reasonable assurance in auditing work and the effectiveness of the audit risk model and the impact of gender, education, official auditor certificate and job rank on this perceptions. The research methodology applied is descriptive - survey and statistical population includes independent auditors working in Iranian private auditing institutes in two ranks of partner and administrators where 269 people were chosen as samples applying accidental sampling (including 150 administrators and 119 institute partners). The required data has been collected through questionnaires and in order to analyze the collected data, inferring and descriptive statistical methods have been applied. The results indicate significant differences between the auditors’ perceptions with different job rank, gender and qualified for official auditor certificate touching reasonable assurance in auditing work the effectiveness of the audit risk model.
Yahya, H. Y., and Kasiri, H. (2003(, “Applying the concept of significance in auditing and its influence on independent auditors? comments”? accounting studies journal vol.2, p.53.
Mohsen, K. T. (1998), Presenting Fiscal lists on the investors? judgments in investing decision auditing and accounting investigations magazine, vol.24 and 25 p. 25.
Reza, S. (2007) Auditing management’s performance? Tehran: auditing organization accounting and auditing center of specialized researches fourth edition.
Allen, R., Hermanson, D., Kozloski, T., and Ramsay, R. (2006), “Auditor risk assessment: insight from the academic literature”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 157-177.
American Institute of Certified Public Accounting (AICPA): SAS47 (1983) and AU 312. (1984), Audit Risk And Materiality In Conducting An Audit.
Arens, A., Elder, R., and Beasley, M. (2006), Auditing and Assurances Services, 11th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chung, J., and Monroe, G. (2001), “The effects of experience and task difficulty on accuracy and confidence assessments of auditors”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 135-152.
Daniel, S. S. (1988). “Some empirical evidence about the assessment of audit risk in practice”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.174–181.
Dusenbury, R., Reamers, J., and Wheeler, S. (2004). “The audit risk model: an empirical test for conditioned dependencies among assessed component risks”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 105-115.
Elias, R. (2004), “The impact of corporate ethical values on perceptions of earnings management”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 84-98.
Hardies, K., Breech, D., and Branson, J. (2009) Are Female Auditors Still Women? Analyzing the sex differences affecting audit quality Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, 29(7), pp. 22–30.
Hardies, K., Breech, D., and Branson, J. (2011). Methodological Considerations for Research on Auditor Gender. Working paper presented at the 32nd Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association, May 12–15, Tampered.
Ittonen Kim. (2010). Auditor’s Gender and Audit Fees. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 10–19.
Johnstone, K., and Bedard, J. (2003), “Risk management in client acceptance decisions Accounting Review, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 1003-1025.
Law, Philip. (2008)."Auditors’ perceptions of reasonable assurance in audit work and the effectiveness of the audit risk model", Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 160-178.
Libby, R., Atman, J., and Willingham, J. (2001), “Process susceptibility, control risk, and audit planning”, Accounting Review, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 212-230.
Klaus, R., and Lubitzschand, K. (2010). Determinants of the Maximum Level of Assurance for Various Assurance Services. A literature review of the belief-adjustment model’, Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Vol. 8, pp. 1-40.
Schelluch, P., and Gay, G. (2006), “Assurance provided by auditors’ reports on prospective financial information: implications for the expectation gap”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 653-76.
Strawser, R. (1990), “Human information processing and the consistency of the audit risk model”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 21, pp. 67-75.
Tackett, J., Wolf, F., and Claypool, G. (2004), “Sarbanes-Oxley and audit failure: a critical examination”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 340-350.
Wustemann, J. (2005). Evaluation and Response to Risk in International Accounting and Audit System: Framework and German Experiences. Journal of Corporation Law, pp. 449-466.
Yardley, J. A. (2005).Explaining the conditional nature of the audit risk model.” Journal of Accounting Education, Volume 7, Issue 1, spring 1989, pp. 107-114.
In-Text Citation: (Valipour et al., 2012)
To Cite this Article: Valipour, H., Moradi, J., & Moazaminezhad, H. (2012). Auditors’ Perceptions of Reasonable Assurance the Effectiveness of the Audit Risk Model: Case from Iran. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting Finance and Management Sciences, 2(3), 94–115.
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode