A Test of Changes in Auditors' Fraud‐Related Planning Judgments since the Issuance of SAS No. 82

By Steven M. Glover, Douglas F. Prawitt, Joseph J. Schultz, Mark F. Zimbelman. 2003

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fb092aa3eb2ac2fc5f1d8c4b80d3441de83af655

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. Jacqueline S. Hammersley
5. Lori B. Shefchik
6. F. DeZoort
7. E. O'Donnell
8. Gopal V. Krishnan

In Management Science and Operations Research

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

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Jacqueline S. Hammersley
2. E. O'Donnell
3. Gopal V. Krishnan
4. Mikhail Pevzner
5. Joseph J. Schultz

Citations in the corpus

• A Review and Model of Auditor Judgments in Fraud-Related Planning Tasks (2011, methodology): “However, Glover et al. (2003) also report no effect of red flag presence or implementation of SAS 82 on perceived audit program strength (i.e., the same measure as used by Zimbelman [1997]).”
• The Halo Effect in Business Risk Audits: Can Strategic Risk Assessment Bias Auditor Judgment about Accounting Details? (2005, background): “Due to increasing emphasis on more subjective judgments (e.g., business risk assessment and analytical procedures) and decreasing emphasis on more objective substantive tests of details (Kinney and Felix 1993; Glover et al. 2003 ), the need to understand any bias in planning-phase judgments is para”
• Understanding Auditors’ Sense of Responsibility for Detecting Fraud Within Organizations (2018, background): “The research literature also emphasizes the importance of external auditors’ fraud-related responsibilities with numerous studies focused on auditors’ fraud risk assessments (e.g., Asare and Wright 2004; Glover et al. 2003; Knapp and Knapp 2001; Shelton et al. 2001) and how various contextual factor”
• 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).”
• Using Nonfinancial Measures to Assess Fraud Risk (2009, unknown): “Houston 1999; Glover et al. 2003; Brazel et al. 2004).”