Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 585

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Auditor Selection and Audit Committee Characteristics

Abbott, Lawrence J., Parker, Susan·2000·AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory

Abstract

The role of the audit committee in corporate governance is the subject of increasing public and regulatory interest. We focus on one frequently noted function of the audit committee: auditor selection. We argue that independent and active audit committee members demand a high level of audit quality because of concerns about monetary or reputational losses that may result from lawsuits or SEC sanction. Auditors who specialize in the client's industry are expected to provide a higher level of audit quality than do nonspecialists. Thus, we predict that firms with audit committees that are both independent and active are more likely to employ an industry-specialist auditor. We find that firms with audit committees that do not include employees and that meet at least twice per year are more likely to use specialists. This study contributes to our understanding of audit committee functions and provides evidence that industry specialization is an important element of auditor selection.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2308/aud.2000.19.2.47

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Abbott, L. J., & Parker, S.
Venue
AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory
Published
2000-09-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
47-66
ISSN
  • 0278-0380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7991
OpenAlex
W2153683987
Cited by
585
References
1
FWCI
31.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.