@article{lambert_jones_brazel_showalter_2017, title={Audit time pressure and earnings quality: An examination of accelerated filings}, volume={58}, ISSN={0361-3682}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.AOS.2017.03.003}, DOI={10.1016/j.aos.2017.03.003}, abstractNote={Using publicly available data from annual reports, we find that SEC rule changes (33-8128 and 33-8644) that impose time pressure on the audits of registered firms have a negative impact on earnings quality, which we interpret as evidence of lower audit quality. Consistent with our predictions, we find that the 10-K accelerations reduced audit quality only when it actually reduced the number of days from year-end to audit report date, and that this effect was more acute for smaller, accelerated filers and during the initial deadline change (relative to the second). We also provide insights into the quality of these audits by conducting a survey of thirty-two retired audit partners. Survey results underscore the challenges time pressure imposes on receiving and evaluating complex valuations (such as for derivatives, pensions, and goodwill) and resolving audit adjustments.}, journal={Accounting, Organizations and Society}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Lambert, Tamara A. and Jones, Keith L. and Brazel, Joseph F. and Showalter, D. Scott}, year={2017}, month={Apr}, pages={50–66} }
 @article{brazel_jackson_schaefer_stewart_2016, title={The outcome effect and professional skepticism}, volume={91}, number={6}, journal={Accounting Review}, author={Brazel, J. F. and Jackson, S. B. and Schaefer, T. J. and Stewart, B. W.}, year={2016}, pages={1577–1599} }
 @article{brazel_jones_thayer_warne_2015, title={Understanding investor perceptions of financial statement fraud and their use of red flags: Evidence from the field}, volume={20}, number={4}, journal={Review of Accounting Studies}, author={Brazel, J. and Jones, K. and Thayer, J. and Warne, R.}, year={2015}, pages={1373–1406} }
 @article{brazel_carpenter_jenkins_2010, title={Auditors' use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud: Reports from the field}, volume={85}, number={4}, journal={Accounting Review}, author={Brazel, J. F. and Carpenter, T. D. and Jenkins, J. G.}, year={2010}, pages={1273–1301} }
 @article{agoglia_brazel_hatfield_jackson_2010, title={How do audit workpaper reviewers cope with the conflicting pressures of detecting misstatements and balancing client workloads?}, volume={29}, number={2}, journal={Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory}, author={Agoglia, C. P. and Brazel, J. F. and Hatfield, R. C. and Jackson, S. B.}, year={2010}, pages={27–43} }
 @misc{agoglia_hatfield_brazel_2009, title={The effects of audit review format on review team judgments}, volume={28}, number={1}, journal={Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory}, author={Agoglia, C. P. and Hatfield, R. C. and Brazel, J. F.}, year={2009}, pages={95–111} }
 @article{brazel_jones_zimbelman_2009, title={Using Nonfinancial Measures to Assess Fraud Risk}, volume={47}, ISSN={["1475-679X"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00349.x}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH}, author={Brazel, Joseph F. and Jones, Keith L. and Zimbelman, Mark F.}, year={2009}, month={Dec}, pages={1135–1166} }
 @article{brazel_agoglia_2007, title={An examination of auditor planning judgements in a complex accounting information system environment}, volume={24}, ISSN={["1911-3846"]}, DOI={10.1506/car.24.4.1}, abstractNote={This study investigates the effects of computer assurance specialist (CAS) competence and auditor accounting information system (AIS) expertise on auditor planning judgements in a complex AIS environment. Recent professional standards state that auditors need to change their audit strategies in reaction to the all-encompassing changes in their clients’ AIS (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants [AICPA] 2001, 2002). Information technology (IT) applications, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, are significantly changing the ways in which companies operate their businesses (e.g., business process reengineering) and auditors perform their duties (Helms 1999; Public Oversight Board [POB] 2000). For example, the implementation and utilization of ERP systems at many major corporations can increase audit-related risks such as business interruption, data base security, process interdependency, and overall control risk (Hunton, Wright, and Wright 2004). As technological developments continue, auditors must expand their AIS knowledge and skills in order to perform effective and efficient audits (POB 2000; Kinney 2001; AICPA 2002). Prior research suggests that expertise in the AIS domain may make auditors more cognizant of AIS-specific risks and provide them with the sophisticated audit skills required in such settings (Lilly 1997; Hunton et al. 2004). To our knowledge, our study is the first to examine whether auditors’ AIS expertise levels affect their risk assessments and subsequent testing decisions in a complex AIS setting. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 94 (AICPA 2001) suggests that a CAS be assigned to assist in the audit of computer-intensive environments. CAS (also referred to as information systems audit specialists and IT auditors) provide}, number={4}, journal={CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH}, author={Brazel, Joseph F. and Agoglia, Christopher R.}, year={2007}, pages={1059-+} }
 @article{brazel_agoglia_hatfield_2004, title={Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors' performance}, volume={79}, ISSN={["1558-7967"]}, DOI={10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.949}, abstractNote={Due to recent technological advancements such as online workpapers and email, audit firms have alternative methods of workpaper review that they did not have in the past. While audit workpaper preparers typically know they will be reviewed, and know the form their review will take, prior research has focused on comparing the judgments of auditors who expect to be reviewed with auditors who expect to remain anonymous. This study examines the effects on preparers of using two different methods of review: face-to-face and electronic review. The study also compares both review groups to a no-review control group. Consistent with the Heuristic-Systematic Model, we find that the method of review affects preparer effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically, preparers anticipating a face-to-face review are more concerned with audit effectiveness, produce higher quality judgments, are less efficient at their task, are less likely to be influenced by prior year workpapers, and feel more accountable than preparers in both the electronic review and no-review conditions. Interestingly, electronic review preparers generally do not differ from the no-review group. These results suggest that how a review will be conducted, and not merely the expectation that a review will occur, affects the decision-maker's judgments and perceptions.}, number={4}, journal={ACCOUNTING REVIEW}, author={Brazel, JF and Agoglia, CR and Hatfield, RC}, year={2004}, month={Oct}, pages={949–966} }