How Do Audit Seniors Respond to Heightened Fraud Risk

By Jacqueline S. Hammersley, Karla M. Johnstone, Kathryn Kadous. 2011

113 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management Science and Operations Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b1dcba1a40159f937762c9f2f466094cae9bb2da

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. Mikhail Pevzner
2. W. Robert Knechel
3. Uma Velury
4. Lori B. Shefchik
5. Gopal V. Krishnan
6. Jacqueline S. Hammersley
7. Tobias Svanström
8. Jere R. Francis

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Gopal V. Krishnan
2. Mikhail Pevzner
3. Lori B. Shefchik
4. Uma Velury
5. W. Robert Knechel
6. Jacqueline S. Hammersley

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Gopal V. Krishnan
2. Mikhail Pevzner
3. Jacqueline S. Hammersley

Citations in the corpus

• Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature (2013, background): “Second, experimental studies suggest that auditors have a difficult time properly modifying the planned audit procedures in responses to risk assessments (Zimbelman 1997; Glover et al. 2000; Glover et al. 2003; Hammersley et al. 2011).”
• A Review and Model of Auditor Judgments in Fraud-Related Planning Tasks (2011, background): “…(2004) report that their senior and manager auditor participants had been involved with an average of 0.25 audits in the previous five years on which fraud was detected; Hammersley et al. (2011) report that their senior auditor participants had been on 0.25 audits on which fraud was detected.”