Auditors’ perceptions of alternative performance measures–alternative truths and professional skepticism

0Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Alternative performance measures (APMs) may increase uncertainty and perceived risks concerning the audit, and rouse the auditor’s professional skepticism (PS), for example in case the APMs and official reporting diverge (e.g. one shows a profit and the other a loss). In this paper, using a survey of Finnish certified public auditors (N = 220), we study how auditors perceive relationships between audit work, PS, and APMs. When examining PS, we use both personal ‘trait skepticism’ and case-specific ‘state skepticism’. Our results show that state skepticism related to APMs can explain skeptical behavior and that it is a separate component from trait skepticism. Both state skepticism and considerations of the usefulness of APMs are helpful in assessing audit evidence and accounting figures. Further, we find that auditors hold various views of APMs and that ‘search for knowledge’ and ‘questioning mind’ are key dimensions of PS in coping with APMs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rautiainen, A., Saastamoinen, J., & Pajunen, K. (2024). Auditors’ perceptions of alternative performance measures–alternative truths and professional skepticism. Accounting in Europe, 21(2), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2244509

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free