332 p with the likelihood of discovering audit

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: agement Integrity on Audit Planning and Evidence 63 information is generally more costly to collect) by going outside the client for data verification instead of simply increasing the analysis of the client’s information. Equations (1)– (4) were also run including two additional control variables YR (the year of the observation) and ROA (return on assets, included as a profitability measure). The results are robust to the inclusion of these variables. The variables are not significant in the regressions and therefore are not included in the primary analysis. Management Integrity and Audit Differences Table 4 presents logistic regression results testing H3. The coefficient on MI is signif0.001) suggesting that MI is associated icant and negative in Equation (5) ( 4.332, p with the likelihood of discovering audit differences. As discussed earlier this finding may be the by-product of more diligent testing for low-integrity assessments, so we attempt to control for the extent of testing to isolate the relationship between misstatement discovery and integrity assessments. Equation (6) includes PERSUASIVENESS, TIMING, and EXTENT as independent variables to control for the potential effect of increased audit effort 0.015). on misstatement discovery. In this equation, MI remains significant ( 9.891, p This evidence provides support for H3. It appears that although the RMM and management integrity assessments are strongly influenced by PYERR, the MI assessment outperforms PYERR as a significant predictor of discovering differences in the current year. Sensitivity Analysis We examine the sensitivity of our results to (1) our use of a combined risk measure, (2) the use of two different metrics for persuasiveness, (3) a scaled measure of the magnitude of audit differences, (4) the inclusion of a fraud risk assessment variable, and (5) the inclusion of an indicator variable for the presence of prior-year misstatements. We rerun all of our empirical tests using either IR or CR in place of RMM. The untabled results of using either IR or CR as the risk measure are consistent with the findings for H1...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online