مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد استفاده از متخصصان در تعاملات حسابرسی – الزویر 2017

The specialist’s role on audit engagements has recently assumed greater significance, and is a topic of ongoing discussion among academics and regulators, including proposed changes to the auditing standards regarding the use of specialists (PCAOB 2017b). Specialists are experts who may perform a range of duties on audits, such as helping auditors to assess risk and 2 performing testing procedures. Yet, because specialists are not formally audit personnel, the auditor assumes responsibility for the specialist’s work in supporting the audit opinion, and using specialists does not always translate to higher audit quality (Boritz, Kochetova-Kozloski, & Robinson 2015). 1 Therefore, the importance of specialists on audits and the increased interest in specialists’ involvement motivate this review. Based on research and reports from accounting firms (Boritz, Robinson, Wong, & Kochetova-Kozloski 2016; Deloitte 2016; PwC 2016), the most commonly used specialists on audits are those in valuation, tax, IT audit, and forensic. 2 Currently, the research in these four specialist domains is largely growing independently of each other. Given the increased interest in specialists’ involvement and the PCAOB’s (2017b) proposed standard revision, it is important to evaluate the specialist literature as a whole. Therefore, the primary purpose of this review is to synthesize research in these four specialist domains. In doing so, I also identify commonalities across these literatures and (if applicable) where unique findings in one specialist domain could help inform research in other domains, and thus increase the generalizability of certain research findings. I organize the collective specialist findings according to: (1) factors associated with auditors’ use of specialists on an audit engagement (including the nature, timing and extent of involvement); (2) factors impacting auditors’ interactions with specialists (including specialists contracted by the auditor or management); and (3) outcomes associated with specialist use. First, across the four specialist domains, the following five factors commonly contribute (alone or in combination) to auditors’ use of specialists: (1) the need for specific skills/expertise; (2) complexity; (3) risk; (4) budget; and (5) firm guidance/aids. While the first three common factors are consistent with auditing standards on using specialists (PCAOB 1994: AS 1210: IFAC 2015: ISA 620), the standards do not show the multidimensionality of these factors. However, across the specialist research, “risk” is categorized by account-, process-, audit-, and client-related characteristics, and studies measure those characteristics differently (e.g., materiality, new client, management’s knowledge). This shows the different elements that auditors consider when using specialists.