博碩士論文 984401005 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:15 、訪客IP:18.232.59.38
姓名 林秀玲(Hsiu-Ling Lin)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 企業管理學系
論文名稱 會計師事務所審計品質評估
(Audit Quality of CPA Firms)
相關論文
★ 台灣與大陸在ERP專案管理、專案成員向心力與離心力的不同之處★ ERP專案成員離心力與向心力對代理問題之影響
★ 事業策略、人力資源管理與組織績效之實證研究★ 商用飛機維修成本控制之研究-以某國籍航空公司為例
★ ERP系統更換關鍵成功因素研究-以Oracle系統導入為例★ 中小企業自行開發ERP 系統關鍵成功因素研究- 以高科技產業為例
★ 文化創意產業產品策略選擇之影響因素-以國片為例★ 專案管理風險對ERP專案成功之影響
★ 品質機能展開與多準則決策於設備開發應用★ ERP導入品質因素對IFRS轉換專案之影響
★ ERP投資金額對服務品質及導入後IT治理目標之分析★ ERP 導入問題對專案的影響
★ IFRS轉換對員工退休金計畫影響★ IFRS轉換對企業績效評估的影響
★ IFRS轉換問題對IFRS效益的影響★ ERP環境下企業集團自行編製合併報表能力對XBRL資訊透明度之研究
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)
摘要(中) 近年,世界各地發生許多因為公司治理缺陷而爆發嚴重的財務危機和弊案,使投資人的信心面臨重大考驗,公司高層舞弊等醜聞,引起大眾們對審計品質產生很大的疑問。一般大眾對複雜的審計功能並無深入的了解,進而產生了審計期望的差異。而目前大眾認知的高品質的審計亦即是能避免因公司或市場的財務困難而產生經濟問題。不同角度來看會得到不同結果,此研究中,從定義審計品質開始,再到敘述影響審計品質的各種因素,主要分析三大因素-獨立性、專業性、組織治理品質,其下共有14個準則,透過不同角色的專家填寫問卷-學者、公司(客戶)、會計師事務所,評估這十四個準則影響審計品質之因素的高低。經由發問卷予專家填寫,透過DMATEL 及ANP研究方法,由整體研究結果發現,審計建議品質、會計師對產業熟悉度及查核經驗、客戶重要性、事務所規模大小、會計師查核規劃為排名前五名影響審計品質。其中有三個準則-審計建議品質、會計師對產業熟悉度及查核經驗、查核規劃較屬專業面,故專業性為主要影響獨立性及組織治理品質的因素,其中組織治理品質係較不具影響審計品質的。
摘要(英) Recently, many cases of fraud and financial crisis have arisen everywhere around the world due to the defect of corporate governance, resulting in a severe decrease in investor confidence. Scandals about company managers cheating have also stirred serious doubts among the public about audit quality. Ordinary people know little about the complex functions of auditing and therefore have misguided expectations. Currently, the public only understands that high-quality auditing can help to prevent economic issues caused by the financial difficulties of a company or the market. Moreover, different results arise when this issue is discussed from different perspectives. This study begins by defining audit quality, and describing various factors that affect audit quality. Three key factors are analyzed— independence, professionalism, and institutional governance quality—and the analyses include the discussion of the 14 evaluation criteria. These evaluation criteria are further assessed by inviting professionals, including scholars, companies (clients) and CPA firms, to fill out a questionnaire to determine the extent to which each criterion influences audit quality.
Using these questionnaires, and DMATEL and ANP methodologies, our results show that an accountant’s familiarity with the industry, audit recommendation quality, the importance of a client, the size of the accounting firm, and the accountant’s audit plan are the top five influential factors. Three of these top factors: the accountant’s familiarity with the industry, audit recommendation quality and the accountant’s audit plan, are concerned with the professional practice of accounting. Given this, professionalism can be seen as the major factor to influence independence and institutional governance quality, where the latter is less influential in terms of audit quality.
關鍵字(中) ★ 審計品質
★ 評估準則
★ 多準則決策方法
★ 決策實驗室分析法
★ 網路分析法
★ 獨立性
★ 專業性
★ 組織治理品質
關鍵字(英) ★ Audit Quality
★ Evaluation Criteria
★ Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM)
★ Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL)
★ Analytic Network Process (ANP)
★ Independence
★ Professionalism
★ Institutional Governance Quality
論文目次 Table of Contents
English Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------- i
Chinese Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ii
Acknowledgements -------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
Table of Contents ----------------------------------------------------------------------- iv
List of Figures -------------------------------------------------------------------------- v
List of Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------- vi
Chapter 1 Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review -------------------------------------------------------- 3
2.1 Audit independence---------------------------------------------------------- 3
2.2 Professionalism--------------------------------------------------------------- 6
2.3 Institutional governance quality-------------------------------------------- 9
2.4 Definition of audit quality and 14 key assessment criteria------------- 13
Chapter 3 Research Design---------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.1 DEMATEL--------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
3.2 ANP---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
Chapter 4 Results---------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
Chapter 5 Conclusions---------------------------------------------------------------- 36
References------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 38
參考文獻 References
[1] Bedard, J, & Paquette, S. M. (2010). Perception of auditor independence, audit committee characteristics, and auditor provision of tax services. Available at Social Science Research Network, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1084099.
[2] Bell, T, Doogar, R, & Solomon, I. (2008). Audit labor usage and fees under business risk auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(4), 729–760.
[3] Bilbao-Terol, A, Arenas-Parra, M, Cañal-Fernández, V, & Bilbao-Terol, C. (2013). Selection of socially responsible portfolios using hedonic prices. Journal Business Ethics, 115(3): 515-529.
[4] Bilbao-Terol, A, Arenas-Parra, M, & Cañal-Fernández V. (2012). A fuzzy multi-objective approach for sustainable investments. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 10904-109015.
[5] Carpenter BW, Dirsmith MW, Gupta PP. (1994). Materiality judgments and audit firm culture: Social-behavioral and political perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society. (19, 4–5): 355–380.
[6] Caramanis C, Lennox C. (2008). Audit effort and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics. (45);116-138.
[7] Calderon T, Wang L, Klenoptic T. (2012). Past control risk and current audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal. (27– 2):693–708.
[8] Chen FH, Hsu TS, Tzeng GH. (2011). A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM, International journal of Hospitality Management. (30,4):908-932.
[9] DeAngelo LE. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics. (3, 3):183–199.
[10] Francis J, Krishnan J. (1999). Accounting Accruals and Auditor Reporting Conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research. (16, 1):135-165
[11] Grigoroudis E, Orfanoudaki E, Zopounidis C. (2012). Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: A multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. OMEGA. 40(1):104-119.
[12] Goodman J. (1988). Probabilistic Scientific Evidence: Jurors' Inferences. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms Int'l.
[13] Gabus A, Fontela E. (1972). World Problems an Invitation to Further Thought within the Framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Switzerland, Geneva.
[14] Hackenbrack K, Knechel WB. (1997). Resource allocation decisions in audit engagements.Contemporary Accounting Research. (14): 481–499.
[15] Houston RW, Peters MF, Pratt JH. (1999). The audit risk model, business risk, and audit-planning decisions. The Accounting Review. (74): 281–298.
[16] Johnstone K, Bedard J. (2001). Engagement planning, bid pricing, and client response to initial attest engagements. The Accounting Review. 76 (2):199–22.
[17] Johnstone K, Bedard J. (2004). Earnings manipulation risk, corporate governance risk, and auditors’ planning and pricing decisions. The Accounting Review. (79–2):277–304.
[18] Knechel WR, Krishnan GV, Pevzner M, Shefchik LB, and Velury UK. (2013). Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature. Auditing, A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32 (1): 385–421.
[19] Knechel WR, Sharma D. (2011). Auditor-Provided Non-Audit Services and Audit Effectiveness and Efficiency: Evidence From Pre- and Post-SOX Audit Report Lags. Working paper, University of Florida and Florida International University.
[20] Krishnan G, Yu W. (2011). Further evidence on knowledge spillover and the joint determination of audit and non-audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal. 26 (3):230–247.
[21] Krishnan G, Sengupta P. (2011). How do auditors perceive recognized versus disclosed lease and pension obligations? Evidence from fees and going concern opinions. International Journal of Auditing. (15–2) :127–149.
[22] Lai KW, Krishnan G. (2009). Are non-audit services associated with firm value? Evidence from financial information system-related services. Accounting and Finance. 49 :599-617.
[23] Liu M. (2007). Corporate Governance. Auditor Choice and Auditor Switch --- Evidence from China. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
[24] O’Keefe T, King R, Gaver K. (1994). Audit fees, industry specialization, and compliance with GAAS reporting standards. Auditing, A Journal of Practice and Theory. 13. 41-55
[25] Pietra RD. (2013). About This Journal. Journal of Management and Governance. (17, 3) :1.
[26] Papoulis S, Pillai S. (2002). Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes. McGraw-Hill 4th ed.
[27] Redmayne NB, Bradbury M, Cahan S. (2010). The effect of political visibility on audit effort and audit pricing. Accounting and Finance. 50(4):921–939.
[28] Simunic DA. (1984). Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research. 22(2):679-702.
[29] Svanström T, Sundgren S. (2012). The demand for non-audit services and auditor-client relationships:Evidence from Swedish small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Auditing. 16(1):54–78.
[30] Schultz J J Jr, Bierstaker J L, O’Donnell E. (2010). Integrating business risk into auditor judgment about the risk of material misstatement: The influence of a strategic-systems-audit approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society. (35, 2):238–251.
[31] Saaty TL. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The Analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
[32] Saaty TL. (1990). An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Management Science. 36(3) :259-268.
[33] Saaty TL. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the Principal Eigen vector necessary? European Journal of Operational Research. 145(1):85-91
[34] Tang, Hui-Wen Vivian (2011), Optimizing an immersion ESL curriculum using analytic hierarchy process, Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(4): 343-352.
[35] Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, & Li CW. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications. 32(4) :1028–1044.
[36] Wu, H.Y., Lin, Y.K., and Chang, C.S. (2011). Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1): 37-50.
[37] Wu, H.Y. (2012). Constructing a strategy map for banking institutions with key performance indicators of the balanced scorecard. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(3): 303-320.
指導教授 蔡文賢(Wen-Hsien Tsai) 審核日期 2014-4-25
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明