Abstract Numerous studies have addressed audit quality. Archival studies have focused on differences among individual firms or classes of firms (e.g., large versus small). Some behavioral studies have also related audit quality attributes in a similar fashion. Other behavioral studies have elicited the attributes of audit quality from auditors, and one from chairpersons of audit committees. However, in an increasingly competitive environment, it seems important to understand the perceptions of both users and preparers as they relate to audit quality. Any differences may allow for audit firms to deliver more satisfaction to both groups and simultaneously improve their own audit quality. This study surveyed high-ranking auditors, preparers, and users as a basis for comparing their perceptions of the underlying components of audit quality. Usable responses from 245 audit partners, 264 Fortune 1000 controllers, and 120 sophisticated users were distilled into 12 salient components using factor analysis. Using these 12 components, the perceptions of the three groups were then compared to isolate significant differences. Characteristics related to members of the audit team were generally perceived to be more important to audit quality than characteristics related to the audit firm itself, such as litigation record. The four factors reported to be most important in determining audit quality were audit team and firm experience with the client, industry expertise (especially within the audit team), responsiveness to client needs, and compliance with the general standards (competence, independence, and due care) of generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). However, among the three groups, there were significant differences in the importance assigned to each factor. Both preparers and users placed significantly more importance on adherence to the general standards of GAAS than did audit partners. Auditor responsiveness to client needs was seen as more important by preparers than by partners. On the other hand, audit partners placed more emphasis on a skeptical attitude than did preparers. Finally, users also placed significantly less emphasis on involvement of high-ranking members of the audit team than did partners.
Carcello et al. (Sun,) studied this question.