چکیده:
Auditors, when planning an audit, typically examine unexpected fluctuations in account balances and financial statement ratios. According to research, the first source auditors address when discovering an unexpected fluctuation is reviewing management's explanations of the entity under review. Auditors, after requesting explanations from the entity's management, decide on revising the audit plan and documenting justifications in audit workpapers for planning decisions. This research aims to evaluate management explanations by auditors and investigate how this evaluation impacts the audit review process. Furthermore, this research examines how the audit review process and the type of available evidence influence auditors' judgments regarding their audit planning decisions. The results of this research indicate that these two factors have a significant impact on auditors' justifications, and auditors who expect a subsequent review document more justifications than those who do not expect such a review. Therefore, conducting a subsequent review encourages auditors to document more types of justifications. Additionally, auditors' justifications are influenced by the type of evidence available, and auditors receiving inconsistent evidence include more justifications in their planning notes compared to those who receive consistent evidence or no evidence at all.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Auditors, considering auditing standards and the need to maintain audit quality, examine unexpected fluctuations in account balances and financial statement ratios during their work planning through the implementation of analytical procedures and make necessary adjustments to programs based on the results.
Problem Statement The subject of this research is the examination of professional judgments of auditors in evaluating management explanations of the client, evaluating the work performed by the audit team, and evaluating the quantity and quality of audit evidence in order to express an opinion on the financial statements.
Importance and Necessity of the Research Auditors often decide whether to revise the audit plan and document justifications in audit workpapers after observing unexpected fluctuations and requesting explanations from the management of the unit under audit.
Also, according to Statement of Auditing Standards No. 56 entitled “Analytical Procedures,” it is necessary for auditors to obtain evidence regarding the credibility of management explanations from unexpected fluctuations in account balances and ratios[6].
Research Findings Auditors, after observing unexpected fluctuations in the explanations received from management The unit under review decides on revising the audit program and documented justifications in audit workpapers for planning purposes.
Figure (1): Number and Types of Justifications Documented by Auditors Under Review and No Review Conditions (Refer to the page image) The relationship between the significance of the difference between the groups of participants in the research in terms of review and no review was examined using a t-test.
(
, 
, 
)
