covid
Buscar en
Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review
Toda la web
Inicio Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review La influencia de las explicaciones de la dirección en la evaluación de los pro...
Información de la revista
Vol. 12. Núm. 1.
Páginas 11-43 (1 enero 2009)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 12. Núm. 1.
Páginas 11-43 (1 enero 2009)
Open Access
La influencia de las explicaciones de la dirección en la evaluación de los procedimientos analíticos de auditoría
The effect of management explanations on auditor decision processes in analytical procedures
Visitas
1897
Reiner Quick*
University of Darmstadt
Daniel Sánchez Toledano*
Universidad de Malaga
Este artículo ha recibido

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Resumen
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Resumen

La aplicación de procedimientos analíticos está basada en la expectativa de que existan relaciones entre los datos contenidos en los estados contables, y proporcionan evidencia de auditoría sobre la validez, precisión e integridad de la información contable. Los auditores generan valores esperados y los comparan con los contenidos en los estados financieros. Cuando se producen discrepancias, el auditor debe generar hipótesis sobre las posibles causas, evaluarlas y elegir la más plausible. Los estándares de auditoría requieren que los auditores consulten a la dirección para encontrar explicaciones que justifiquen fluctuaciones inesperadas. Investigaciones empíricas anteriores revelan que las explicaciones de la dirección influyen en la generación de hipótesis y en los procedimientos analíticos. Este estudio experimental, basado en una fluctuación inesperada del margen bruto, es el primero alemán que investiga el efecto de las explicaciones de la dirección en las etapas de formación de hipótesis, búsqueda de información y juicios finales respecto a los procedimientos analíticos.

Palabras clave:
Auditoría
procedimientos analíticos
explicaciones de la dirección
Abstract

The application of analytical procedures is based on the expectation that relationships exist among financial statements data on a continuous basis. The presence of these relationships provides audit evidence as to the completeness, accuracy and validity of the data produced by the accounting system. Auditors generate expected values and compare them with financial statements values. In case of discrepancies, the auditor has to generate hypotheses with regard to potential causes, evaluate these hypotheses and select the most plausible one. Auditing standards require that auditors routinely have to consult management for explanations of unexpected fluctuations. Prior empirical research revealed that management explanations influence hypotheses generation and lead to a biased analytical procedures process. This experimental study is based on a material unexpected fluctuation in gross margin. It is the first German study which investigates the effect of management explanations on hypothesis generation, information search, hypothesis evaluation, and final judgment stages of the analytical procedures process. The inherited hypotheses increased effectiveness of the analytical procedures process performed by non-industry specialists when this explanation reflected the correct cause. Furthermore, the management explanation had a negative effect on the efficiency of industry specialists when it reflected the correct cause. Overall, a negative effect of management explanations on the analytical procedures process as revealed by international research could not be confirmed by this study.

Key words:
auditing
analytical procedures
management explanations
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Bibliografía
[Ameen et al., 1994]
Elsie C. Ameen, Jerry R. Strawser.
Investigating the Use of Analytical Procedures: An Update and Extension.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory Fall, (1994), pp. S.69-S.76
[Anderson et al., 1992]
John C. Anderson, Steven E. Kaplan, Philip M.J. Reckers.
The Effects of Output Interference on Analytical Procedures Judgements.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Fall, (1992), pp. S.1-S.13
[Anderson et al., 1995]
Urton Anderson, Lisa Koonce.
Explanation as a Method for Evaluating Client- Suggested Causes in Analytical Procedures.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Fall, (1995), pp. S.124-S.132
[Anderson et al., 1998]
Urton Anderson, Lisa Koonce.
Evaluating the Sufficiency of Causes in Auditing Analytical Procedures.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1998), pp. S.1-S.12
[Asare et al., 2000]
Stephan K. Asare, Gregory M. Trompeter, Arnold M. Wright.
The Effect of Accountability and Time Budgets on Auditors’ Testing Strategies.
Contemporary Accounting Research, (2000), pp. 539-560
[Asare et al., 2003]
Stephen K. Asare, Arnold M. Wright.
A Note on the Interdependence between Hypothesis Generation and Information Search in Conducting analytical Procedures.
Contemporary Accounting Research, (2003), pp. S.235-S.251
[Asare et al., 1998]
Stephen K. Asare, Arnold Wright, Sally Wright.
Utilizing Analytical Procedures as Substantive Evidence: The Impact of a Client Explanation on Hypothesis Testing.
Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research Stamford, pp. S.13-S.32
[Bedard et al., 1991b]
Jean C. Bedard, Stanley F. Biggs.
The Effect of Domain-Specific Experience on Evaluation of Management Representations in Analytical Procedures.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Supplement, (1991), pp. S.78-S.90
[Bierstaker et al., 1999]
James L. Bierstaker, Jean C. Bedard, Stanley F. Biggs.
The Role of Problem Representation Shifts in Auditor Decision Processes in Analytical Procedures.
Auditing A Journal of Theory & Practice, Spring, (1999), pp. S.18-S.36
[Biggs et al., 1984]
Stanley F. Biggs, John J. Wild.
A Note on the Practice of Analytical Review.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1984), pp. S.68-S.79
[Church and Bryan, 1991]
Bryan K. Church.
An examination of the effect that commitment to hypothesis has on auditors’ evaluations confirming and disconfirming evidence.
Contemporary Accounting Research, (1991), pp. S.513-S.534
[Church et al., 1993]
Bryan K. Church, Arnold Schneider.
Auditors’ Generation of Diagnostic Hypotheses in Response to a Superior's Suggestion: Interference Effects.
Contemporary Accounting Research, (1993), pp. S.333-S.350
[Coackley et al., 1985]
James R. Coackley, James K. Loebbecke.
The Expectation of Accounting Errors in Medium-Sized Manufacturing Firms.
Advances in Accounting, (1985), pp. S.199-S.245
[Cushing et al., 1986]
Barry E. Cushing, James K. Loebbecke.
Comparision of Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms, Studien.
Accounting Research, 26 American Accounting Association, (1986),
[Daroca et al., 1985]
Frank P. Daroca, William W. Holder.
The Use of Analytical Procedures in Review and Audit Engagement.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1985), pp. S.81-S.92
[Fraser et al., 1997]
Ian A.M. Fraser, David J. Hatherly, Kenny Z. Lin.
An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Analytical Review by External Auditors.
The British Accounting Review, (1997), pp. S.35-S.47
[Gärtner and Michael, 1994]
Michael Gärtner.
“Analytische Prüfungshandlungen im Rahmen der Jahresabschlussprüfung: Ein Grundsatz ordnungsmäßiger Abschlussprüfung.
Marburg, (1994),
[Green and Wendy, 2004]
Wendy J. Green.
Impact of the timing of receipt of an inherited explanation on auditor's analytical procedures judgements.
Accounting and Finance, (2004), pp. S.369-S.392
[Green et al., 2008]
Wendy J. Green, W.J. Green.
Are industry specialists more efficient and effective in performing analytical procedures?.
A multi-stage analysis, International Journal of Auditing, 12 (2008), pp. 243-260
[Green et al., 2003]
Wendy J. Green, Kent T. Trotmann.
An Examination of Different Performance Outcomes in an Analytical Procedures Task.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, (2003), pp. S.219-S.235
[Heiman and Vicky, 1990]
Vicky B. Heiman.
Auditors’ Assessments of the Likelihood of Error Explanations in Analytical Review.
The Accounting Review, (1990), pp. S.875-S.890
[Hirst et al., 1996]
D. Eric Hirst, Lisa Koonce.
Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation.
Contemporary Accounting Research, (1996), pp. S.457-S.486
[Holder and William, 1983]
William W. Holder.
Analytical Review Procedures in Planning the Audit: An Application Study.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1983), pp. S.100-S.107
[Hylas et al., 1982]
Robert E. Hylas, Robert H. Ashton.
Audit Detection of Financial Statement Errors.
The Accounting Review, (1982), pp. S.751-S.765
[Johnson et al., 1997]
Laurence E. Johnson, Eric N. Johnson.
Differences in Planning-Phase Analytical Procedures Between Municipal and Commercial Clients: Initial Evidence.
Journal of Applied Business Research, 13 (1997), pp. S.37-S.45
[Kaplan et al., 1989]
Steven E. Kaplan, Philip M. Reckers.
An Examination of Information Search During Initial Audit Planning.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, (1989), pp. S.539-S.550
[Kinney et al., 1990]
William R. Kinney, Christine M. Haynes.
“Analytical Procedure Results as Substantive Evidence”. Srivastava, R. (Hrsg.).
Auditing Symposium X, Lawrence, (1990), pp. S.83-S.103
[Koonce and Lisa, 1992]
Lisa Koonce.
Explanation and Counterexplanation During Audit Analytical Review.
The Accounting Review, (1992), pp. S.59-S.76
[Koonce and Lisa, 1993]
Lisa Koonce.
A Cognitive Characterization of Audit Analytical Review.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1993), pp. S.57-S.108
[Lin et al., 2003]
Kenny Z. Lin, Ian A.M. Fraser, David J. Hatherly.
Auditor analytical review judgment: a performance evaluation.
The British Accounting Review, (2003), pp. S.19-S.34
[Mahathevan and Premila, 1997]
Premila Mahathevan.
Auditors’ Use and Perception of Analytical Procedures: Evidence from Singapore.
International Journal of Auditing, (1997), pp. S.225-S.239
[Major and Brenda., 1980]
Brenda Major.
Information Acquisition and Attribution Processes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1980), pp. S.1010-S.1023
[Marten et al., 2006]
Kai-Uwe Marten, Reiner Quick, Klaus Ruhnke.
Lexikon der Wirtschaftsprüfung.
Nach nationalen und internationalen Normen, (2006),
[Marten et al., 2007]
Kai-Uwe Marten, Reiner Quick, Klaus Ruhnke.
Wirtschaftsprüfung. Grundlagen des betriebswirtschaftlichen Prüfungswesens.
Nach nationalen und internationalen Normen, (2007),
[McKeithen et al., 1981]
Kathrine B. McKeithen, Judith S. Reitman, Henry H. Rueter, Stephen C. Hirtle.
Knowledge organization and skill differences in computer programmers.
Cognitive Psychology, (1981), pp. S.307-S.325
[Meyer et al., 1976]
David E. Meyer, Roger W. Schvaneveldt.
Meaning, Memory Structures and Mental Processes.
Science, (1976), pp. 27-33
[Mulligan et al., 1999]
Christina Mulligan, Nicola Inkster.
The Use of Analytical Procedures in the United Kingdom.
International Journal of Auditing, (1999), pp. S.107-S.120
[Newell et al., 1972]
Allen Newell, Herbert A. Simon.
Human Problem Solving.
Englewoods Cliffs, (1972),
[Ng et al., 2001]
Terence Bu-Peow Ng, Wendy Green, Simnett Roger.
The Effects of Fraud Risk and Management Representation on Auditors’ Hypothesis Generation.
ABACUS, (2001), pp. S.352-S.368
[Nickerson and Raymond, 1984]
Raymond S. Nickerson.
Retrieval Inhibition from Part-set Cueing: A Persisting Enigma in Memory Research.
Memory and Cognition, (1984), pp. S.531-S.552
[Peterson et al., 2000]
Bonita K. Peterson, Bernard Wong-On-Wing.
An Examination of the Positive Test Strategy in Auditors’ Hypothesis Testing.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, (2000), pp. S.257-S.277
[Smith et al., 1999]
Geoffrey Smith, Jim Psaros, Scott Holmes.
A Research Note on the Use and Perceived Usefulness of Analytical Procedures by Australian Auditors.
Australian Accounting Review, 9 (1999), pp. S.64-S.72
[Solomon et al., 1999]
Ira Solomon, Shields D. Michael, Ray O. Whittington.
What do industry-specialist auditors know?.
Journal of Accounting Research, (1999), pp. S.191-S.207
[Tabor et al., 1985]
Richard H. Tabor, James T. Willis.
Empirical Evidence on the Changing Role of Analytical Review Procedures.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring, (1985), pp. S.93-S.109
[Taplin and Julian, 1975]
Julian R. Taplin.
Evaluation of Hypotheses in Concept Identification.
Memory and Cognition, (1975), pp. S.85-S.96

Los autores agradecen los comentarios realizados al artículo de los dos evaluadores anónimos y del editor (Emiliano Ruiz). Este artículo ha sido financiado por el Plan Nacional de I+D+i a través del proyecto SEJ2007-62215/ECON

Copyright © 2009. Asociación Española de Profesores Universitarios de Contabilidad (ASEPUC)
Opciones de artículo