The Review Process and the Accuracy of Auditor Judgments
通过实验研究审计复核过程对审计师判断准确性的影响，发现复核过程能提高判断一致性，但准确性提升有限，且可能只是抑制了异常值。
The review process is an integral part of the standard operating procedures of audit firms. While its importance has been noted (for example, see Mautz and Sharaf [1961] and AICPA [1981 sec., 320.02]) there has been little research or discussion on this review process (Bamber and Bylinski [1982]). One exception is Trotman and Yetton [1985] (hereafter TY) who examined the effect of the review process on the consensus of internal control evaluations. They found that although the level of consensus was significantly improved by the use of the review process, similar improvements could be obtained by the use of an interacting or composite group. TY suggested that the addition of a second opinion, regardless of its form, seemed to improve performance. Consistent with most previous studies on internal control judgments in which no criterion variable is available, TY used consensus as a surrogate for accuracy. However, as they noted, consensus is only a reasonable surrogate for accuracy if the expected value across all judges is an unbiased estimate of the correct judgment. Otherwise, group and/ or review processes may simply suppress outliers, thereby inflating consensus without a corresponding increase in accuracy. The main objective of the present study was to overcome this limitation by examining accuracy instead of consensus. This examination of the