@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={Abstract 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={This study examines whether auditors can effectively use nonfinancial measures (NFMs) to assess the reasonableness of financial performance and, thereby, help detect financial statement fraud (hereafter, fraud). If auditors or other interested parties (e.g., directors, lenders, investors, or regulators) can identify NFMs (e.g., facilities growth) that are correlated with financial measures (e.g., revenue growth), inconsistent patterns between the NFMs and financial measures can be used to detect firms with high fraud risk. We find that the difference between financial and nonfinancial performance is significantly greater for firms that committed fraud than for their nonfraud competitors. We also find that this difference is a significant fraud indicator when included in a model containing variables that have previously been linked to the likelihood of fraud. Overall, our results provide empirical evidence suggesting that NFMs can be effectively used to assess fraud risk.}, 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={Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 24, Issue 4 p. 1059-1083 An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment* Joseph F. Brazel, Joseph F. Brazel North Carolina State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorChristopher P. Agoglia, Christopher P. Agoglia Drexel UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Joseph F. Brazel, Joseph F. Brazel North Carolina State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorChristopher P. Agoglia, Christopher P. Agoglia Drexel UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 January 2010 https://doi.org/10.1506/car.24.4.1Citations: 84 * Accepted by Laureen Maines. We would like to thank Mark Beasley, Arnie Wright, Josh Herbold, Mary Curtis, Rick Hatfield, Hank Jaenicke, Greg Jenkins, Kevin Brown, Maria Sanchez, Scott Vandervelde, workshop participants at the 2004 American Accounting Association Annual Meeting, 2005 Auditing Section Midyear Conference, 2006 International Symposium on Audit Research, North Carolina State University, University of Vermont, University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, Kansas State University, University of Montana, Boise State University, University of Manitoba, and especially Laureen Maines (associate editor) and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. We also thank Martin Haley and Cathy Beaudoin for assistance with coding participant data. We appreciate the support of the partners, administrative staff, and audit professionals who participated in this study. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume24, Issue4Winter 2007Pages 1059-1083 RelatedInformation}, 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} }