The Association between Auditor Quality and Auditor Size: An Analysis of Small CPA Firms

Abstract

Prior research has documented a positive association between audit quality and auditor size. While some studies have used audit fee as a surrogate for audit quality, other studies have employed more direct measures, such as the outcomes of quality control reviews. Those latter studies, however, used samples that suffer from severe geographic or client-type restrictions. Moreover, most studies of the quality-size relationship have focused on relatively large CPA firms. The present study extends this literature by using a nationwide sample of 422 small CPA firms selected from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) Private Companies Practice Section peer review program, which provides comprehensive measures of CPA firm quality. This study also investigated (1) whether peer review ratings improve with successive reviews and (2) if oversight organization (the AICPA or state societies of CPAs) systematically affects peer review ratings.

The results show that for firms that perform audits, reviews, and compilations (but not for firms that perform reviews and compilations, but no audits) auditor quality is positively associated with firm size, the number of previous reviews, and oversight by state societies. These findings suggest that (1) firm size is a useful quality surrogate only for firms that conduct audits, (2) the AICPA's peer review program has been successful in that firms improved their peer review ratings over time, and (3) state-society-sponsored reviews should be examined to assess if they are conducted with the same rigor and intensity as AICPA-sponsored reviews.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AICPA. 1996. “System of Quality Control for a CPA Firm's Accounting and Auditing Practice.” System on Quality Control Standards 2. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Barefield

R. M.

Gaver

J. J.

O'Keefe

T. B.

. 1993. “Additional Evidence on the Economics of Attest: Extending Results from the Audit Market to the Market for Compilations and Reviews.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 12 (Spring): 74–87.

Brown

C. D.

Raghunandan

. 1995. “Audit Quality in Audits of Federal Programs by Non-Federal Auditors.” Accounting Horizons 9 (3): 1–10.

Brown

C. D.

Raghunandan

. 1997. “Audit Quality in Audits of Federal Programs by Non-Federal Auditors: A Reply.” Accounting Horizons 11 (1): 72–75.

Colbert

G. J.

O'Keefe

T. B.

. 1995. “Compliance with GAAS Reporting Standards: Evidence from a Positive Enforcement Program.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 14 (Fall): 1–16.

Cramer

J. S.

1991. The LOGIT Model: An Introduction for Economists. London, United Kingdom: Edward Arnold.

DeAngelo

L. E.

1981. “Auditor Size and Audit Quality.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (3): 183–199.

Deis

D. R.

Jr. Giroux

G. A.

. 1992. “Determinants of Audit Quality in the Public Sector.” The Accounting Review 67 (July): 462–479.

Deis

D. R.

Jr. Giroux

G. A.

. 1996

“The Effect of Auditor Changes on Audit Fees, Audit Hours, and Audit Quality.”

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 15 (1): 55–76.

10.

Elder

R. J.

1997. “A Comment on ‘Audit Quality in Audits of Federal Programs by Non-Federal Auditors.’” Accounting Horizons 11 (1): 67–71.

11.

Francis

J. R.

1984. “The Effect of Audit Firm Size on Audit Prices: A Study of the Australian Market.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 6 (August): 133–151.

12.

Francis

J. R.

Andrews

W. T.

Jr. Simon

D. T.

. 1990. “Voluntary Peer Reviews, Audit Quality, and Proposals for Mandatory Peer Reviews.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 5 (13): 369–378.

13.

Francis

J. R.

Simon

D. T.

. 1987. “A Test of Audit Pricing in the Small-Client Segment of the U.S. Audit Market.” The Accounting Review 62 (January): 145–157.

14.

Giroux

Deis

Bryan

. 1995. “The Effect of Peer Review on Audit Economies.” Research in Accounting Regulation 9: 63–82.

15.

Maddala

G. S.

1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Maddala

G. S.

1991. “A Perspective on the Use of Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables Models in Accounting Research.” The Accounting Review 66 (October): 788–807.

17.

McCabe

R. K.

1993. The Accountant's Guide to Peer and Quality Review. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.

18.

O'Keefe

T. B.

Westort

P. J.

. 1992. “Conformance to GAAS Reporting Standards in Municipal Audits and the Economics of Auditing: The Effects of Audit Firm Size, CPA Examination Performance, and Competition.” Research in Accounting Regulation 6: 39–77.

19.

O'Keefe

T. B.

King

R. D.

Gaver

K. M.

. 1994. “Audit Fees, Industry Specialization, and Compliance with GAAS Reporting Standards.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13 (Fall): 41–55.

20.

Palmrose

1986. “Audit Fees and Auditor Size: Further Evidence.” Journal of Accounting Research 24 (Spring): 97–110.

21.

Palmrose

1988. “An Analysis of Auditor Litigation and Audit Service Quality.” The Accounting Review 63 (January): 55–73.

22.

Simunic

D. A.

Stein

. 1986. “Product Differentiation in Auditing: Auditor Choice in the Market for Unseasoned New Issues.” Research Monograph No. 13. Vancouver, B.C.: The Canadian Certified General Accountants' Research Foundation.

23.

Westort

1990. “Investments in Human Capital by Accountants in Public Practice.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.