This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments.,A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors.,Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages.,This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities.,Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns.,This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.

中文翻译：

---

审计角色和审查过程：工作文件准备者和审查者的不同观点

本文旨在研究当前审计实践中审计师在工作文件审阅过程中所扮演角色的看法。具体而言，本文调查了审核员的定义角色如何导致在启动工作文件审核过程的原因，所执行的审核的首选方法以及传达的审核意见的样式化或框架化方面存在明显的差异。工作文件审查过程的提示，方法和偏好。这项调查由四大会计师事务所和另一家国际会计师事务所的215名审计员完成。最终数据集包括来自25个审计伙伴，33位高级经理，30位经理，75位主管审计师/高级人员和52位员工审计师的定量和定性答复，调查结果表明，审阅者和准备者基于其定义的角色而对审阅过程的看法有所不同。首先，审查者和准备者对哪些因素启动了审查过程的观点不同。其次，大多数评论者和准备者在讨论评论笔记时都喜欢面对面的交流。但是，审阅者更可能认为面对面的方法是讨论审阅笔记并促进学习的有效方法，而准备者更喜欢该方法，主要是因为它减少了来回交流。最后，审稿人认为他们主要提供基于结论的审阅笔记，而准备者认为审阅笔记既具有基于结论的信息又具有基于文档的信息。本文通过提供有关评审过程的独特观点来推动学术文献的发展。它没有调查单个员工级别，而是在更广泛的范围内检查工作文件审核过程。通过征求各个级别专业人士的意见，这项工作旨在激发针对调和差异和填补审查过程文献中空白的未来研究。审查者和准备者参与角色整合，导致对审查过程的看法不一致的发现，应鼓励考虑各种机制，并进行实验性测试，以解决不一致问题。结果支持最近的监管者担心存在在工作文件审阅过程中出现故障，这些发现提供了一些了解为什么会发生这些故障的见解。对审阅过程特征的不一致看法可能是这些已确定的监管问题的驱动力。这是第一项从准备者和审阅者的角度检查最大会计师事务所当前工作文件审阅过程的研究。从这一独特的数据集中，对调查结果的一个关键解释是，工作文件准备者似乎没有认识到审查过程的主要目标：确保下属接受适当的指导，学习和发展。但是，实际上，工作文件审阅者确实尝试支持准备者并努力创建一个支持团队的环境。这是从准备者和审阅者的角度审查最大的会计师事务所当前工作文件审阅过程的第一项研究。从这一独特的数据集中，对调查结果的一个关键解释是，工作文件准备者似乎没有认识到审查过程的主要目标：确保下属得到适当的指导，学习和发展。但是，实际上，工作文件审阅者确实尝试支持准备者并努力创建一个支持团队的环境。这是从准备者和审阅者的角度审查最大的会计师事务所当前工作文件审阅过程的第一项研究。从这一独特的数据集中，对调查结果的一个关键解释是，工作文件准备者似乎没有认识到审查过程的主要目标：确保下属得到适当的指导，学习和发展。但是，实际上，工作文件审阅者确实尝试支持准备者并努力创建一个支持团队的环境。