2019
DOI: 10.1111/ijau.12149
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of the disclosure of audit engagement partners on audit quality: Evidence from the USA

Abstract: The debate concerning the recent regulation in the USA mandating accounting firms to disclose engagement partners' identity is ongoing. We examine the impact of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB's) requirement of disclosing engagement partners' names on Form AP on the quality of audit engagements. Using two measures of audit quality (abnormal accruals and the probability of detecting material weaknesses in internal control), we find that disclosing engagement partners' names is associated … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, increasing the reputational capital at stake might be a good mechanism to motivate auditors to improve their due care practices. For example, Burke, Hoitash, and Hoitash (2019) argue that holding partners more accountable through identity disclosure filings (i.e., Form AP) increases their due care, as evidenced by lower abnormal accruals and higher likelihood of internal weakness detection (Dao, Xu, & Liu, 2019). In this regard, the PCAOB's investigative and disciplinary role serves well as a “threat” to the auditors.…”
Section: Research Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, increasing the reputational capital at stake might be a good mechanism to motivate auditors to improve their due care practices. For example, Burke, Hoitash, and Hoitash (2019) argue that holding partners more accountable through identity disclosure filings (i.e., Form AP) increases their due care, as evidenced by lower abnormal accruals and higher likelihood of internal weakness detection (Dao, Xu, & Liu, 2019). In this regard, the PCAOB's investigative and disciplinary role serves well as a “threat” to the auditors.…”
Section: Research Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data were gathered using a questionnaire; it consists of 12 questions regarding the research factors adopted from previous studies. For instance, AIS includes 4 adapted from Ayoub, Potdar, Rudra, and Luong (2020) and (Napitupulu, 2018), organizational culture include 4 items adapted from Gonzá lez-Rodrí guez, Martí n-Samper, Kö seoglu, and Okumus (2019) , Adeinat Iman and Abdulfatah Fatheia (2019), and Di Stefano, Scrima, and Parry (2019); and internal audit quality items adapted from Agyei-Mensah Ben (2019), Dao, Xu, and Liu (2019), and Beck, Gunn, and Hallman (2019). The respondents were asked to test their insight into the five-point Likert-scale research frameworks in which 5 symbolized 'strongly agree,' 4 symbolized 'agree,' 3 symbolized 'Neutral,' 2 symbolized 'Disagree,' and 1 symbolized 'Strongly disagree.'…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the theory of source credibility, revealing engagement partners' names increases the public confidence of the quality of financial information and leads to an upsurge in the quality of audit in appearance (King et al, 2012). The PCAOB in the USA adopted the final rule that requires accounting firms to disclose engagement partners' names in a new PCAOB form AP for all public company audits on or after January 31, 2017, and this disclosure leads to a greater sense of accountability among partners, and thus to higher audit credibility (Dao et al, 2019).…”
Section: Improved Auditor Communicationmentioning
confidence: 99%