Auditor Consensus in Internal Control Evaluation and Audit Program Planning
研究审计师在内部控制评价和审计程序规划中的共识差异，发现前者共识高而后者低，但Joyce的解释未经实证检验，且多数研究未同时考察两者。
Auditors generally perform an evaluation of internal control as a basis for determining the extent of audit work necessary for a particular client engagement. Prior studies on auditors' assessments of internal control systems generally found high consensus among auditors (e.g., Ashton [1974]), while those involving auditors' decisions on audit program planning tasks found low consensus (e.g., Joyce [1976]). Joyce [1976, p. 33] explained these differences in consensus as follows: It is conceivable that different auditors might generally agree on the quality of internal control in a given subsystem yet disagree on how much audit work should be devoted to that subsystem. This is not an unreasonable proposition in view of the fact that characteristics of sound internal control are well defined (and presumably widely known), while the basis for the selection, timing, and extent of audit procedures to apply in a given situation seems to be more ambiguous. However, Joyce's explanation has not been empirically tested. Most research has focused on either internal control or audit planning judgments, but not on both. Thus, when studies reveal high consensus in internal control evaluation (e.g., Ashton [1974], Hamilton and Wright [1977], Ashton and Brown [1980], and Ashton and Kramer [1980]), it is not known if the subjects would have subsequently agreed on the extent of substantive testing.