Can combining judgment decomposition and notetaking improve group auditors' sensitivity to qualitative risk?

Abstract In this study, we leverage judgment decomposition and information acquisition theories to develop and test an intervention to improve group auditors' identification of and response to component‐level qualitative risk. Improving group auditors' response to qualitative risk is important because (1) group audits are prevalent today and require multiple qualitative risk assessments, (2) auditors have historically overlooked qualitative risks, and (3) prior interventions have failed to improve auditors' response to qualitative risk. In an experiment with 88 audit partners and managers, we find that a hybrid risk assessment approach that combines elements of judgment decomposition and notetaking improves auditors' group audit planning decisions. Specifically, auditors utilizing our hybrid approach are better able to identify and respond to component‐level qualitative risks than auditors who use a holistic approach. Importantly, the improvement in qualitative risk response does not come at the expense of auditors' response to quantitative risk.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Contemporary Accounting Research
Published
2025-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13072
Primary Topic
Team Dynamics and Performance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can combining judgment decomposition and notetaking improve group auditors' sensitivity to qualitative risk?

Jaime J. Schmidt, Steven M. Glover, Brant E. Christensen, Ann G. Backof
Contemporary Accounting Research
Team Dynamics and Performance
article

Can combining judgment decomposition and notetaking improve group auditors' sensitivity to qualitative risk?

Jaime J. Schmidt, Steven M. Glover, Brant E. Christensen, Ann G. Backof
article en

Abstract

Abstract In this study, we leverage judgment decomposition and information acquisition theories to develop and test an intervention to improve group auditors' identification of and response to component‐level qualitative risk. Improving group auditors' response to qualitative risk is important because (1) group audits are prevalent today and require multiple qualitative risk assessments, (2) auditors have historically overlooked qualitative risks, and (3) prior interventions have failed to improve auditors' response to qualitative risk. In an experiment with 88 audit partners and managers, we find that a hybrid risk assessment approach that combines elements of judgment decomposition and notetaking improves auditors' group audit planning decisions. Specifically, auditors utilizing our hybrid approach are better able to identify and respond to component‐level qualitative risks than auditors who use a holistic approach. Importantly, the improvement in qualitative risk response does not come at the expense of auditors' response to quantitative risk.

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVol. 42(4)
Brigham Young University (US), University of Virginia (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Brigham Young University, Arizona State University, University of South Florida
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Team Dynamics and Performance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.