Specialists' Evidence Evaluation and Judgments in Audits

Abstract

ABSTRACT Audits of complex fair value estimates involve evaluating and challenging key client assumptions. Auditors generally lack the necessary expertise to perform this work, and thus, they often engage valuation specialists to perform this audit work. However, valuation specialists primarily perform advisory work and may not put enough care into their audit work. We examine whether valuation specialists' psychological ownership of audit work and auditors' infringement on that work affect specialists' judgment quality. Using a survey and an experiment with practicing valuation specialists, we find that higher psychological ownership improves specialists' evidence evaluation and judgments, but only when auditors do not behave intrusively by infringing on their work. When auditors behave intrusively, the benefits of specialists' higher psychological ownership disappear. Our findings show that audit quality depends not only on specialist behavior but also on auditor interactions with specialists. Our study offers practical guidance to audit firms on how to organize audit work and manage internal working relationships between auditors and valuation specialists.