arbiter
JournalsAccount

Are All Auditors the Same? KAM Topic Selection and Audit Procedure Choices in the United Kingdom

Peng‐Chia Chiu et al.

Journal of International Accounting Research2025https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-2023-040article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.41

Abstract

We investigate whether and how audit partners differ in the auditing of key audit matters (KAMs) in expanded audit reports in the United Kingdom. Using hand-collected audit report data and manual categorization, we first present descriptive evidence of audit partners’ heterogeneity in their KAM topic choices and the corresponding audit procedures. We then document that when an audit partner rotates within the same audit firm, the incoming partner tends to change KAMs and the corresponding audit work, and the characteristics of the incoming partners affect audit judgment. In addition, we show that heterogeneous KAM selection and audit work choices are associated with variations in audit outcomes. Finally, we provide evidence that audit partners exhibit different, yet consistent, audit traits.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-2023-040

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{peng‐chia2025,
  title        = {{Are All Auditors the Same? KAM Topic Selection and Audit Procedure Choices in the United Kingdom}},
  author       = {Peng‐Chia Chiu et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of International Accounting Research},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-2023-040},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Are All Auditors the Same? KAM Topic Selection and Audit Procedure Choices in the United Kingdom

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.