Team Deliberation and Audit Quality: The Mediating Role of Audit Brainstorming in the Competence–Judgment–Skepticism–Performance Nexus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/jacc.3902Keywords:
Audit Brainstorming, Auditor Performance, Professional Judgment, Professional Skepticism, Audit Evidence Quality, Audit Reporting QualityAbstract
Purpose: This study examines whether audit brainstorming mediates the relationships between auditor competence, professional judgment, professional skepticism, and auditor performance. Drawing on human capital theory and team information-processing perspectives, the study argues that individual auditor attributes influence engagement outcomes through structured collaborative mechanisms embedded in fraud brainstorming sessions.
Methodology: Using survey data from 285 audit managers across licensed audit firms in Ghana, the study tests a mediation model using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Auditor performance is operationalized through audit evidence quality and audit reporting quality, aligning closely with the auditor’s core objective under international auditing standards.
Findings: The results indicate that audit brainstorming fully mediates the relationship between competence and auditor performance, and partially mediates the relationships between professional judgment, professional skepticism, and performance. These findings suggest that technical expertise enhances performance primarily when integrated into team-based deliberations, while judgment and skepticism exert both direct and process-mediated effects.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Policy and Practice: The study contributes to the audit literature by introducing brainstorming as a process-level mechanism linking auditor attributes to performance and by providing evidence from a developing economy. The results have implications for audit firms and regulators seeking to strengthen fraud risk assessment and engagement quality.
Downloads
References
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago Press.
Bonner, S. E. (1999). Judgment and decision-making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 18(Supplement), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.1999.18.supplement.25
Chen, J. V., Trotman, K. T., & Zhou, F. (2018). Nominal group brainstorming versus round robin brainstorming: An experimental comparison of fraud risk identification and audit planning decisions. The Accounting Review, 93(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51853
Christensen, B. E., Glover, S. M., Omer, T. C., & Shelley, M. K. (2016). Understanding audit quality: Insights from audit professionals and investors. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(4), 1648–1684. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12212
Contessotto, C., Knechel, W. R., & Moroney, R. (2019). Do team-level traits matter? The impact of audit team composition on audit quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(3), 1535–1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12465
DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002
Dennis, S. A., & Johnstone, K. M. (2016). A field study of auditors’ fraud brainstorming practices. Accounting Horizons, 30(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51315
Francis, J. R. (2011). A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50006
Gissel, J. L., & Johnstone, K. M. (2017). Information sharing during auditors’ fraud brainstorming: Effects of psychological safety and auditor knowledge. The Accounting Review, 92(2), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51589
Hardies, K., & Janssen, S. (2017). The effect of gender on professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(3), 290–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-02-2016-1328
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2018). Handbook of international quality control, auditing, review, other assurance, and related services pronouncements. International Federation of Accountants.
Janssen, S. (2020). Audit team composition and fraud risk assessment performance. Managerial Auditing Journal, 35(8), 1105–1128. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-06-2019-2315
McAllister, B. P., Blay, A. D., & Kadous, K. (2016). The effect of professional skepticism on fraud brainstorming performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 54, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.06.004
Mohd-Nassir, M. D., Wan-Hussin, W. N., & Mohd-Sanusi, Z. (2016). The effects of brainstorming and fraud risk assessment on audit performance. Asian Review of Accounting, 24(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-07-2014-0080
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2015). Staff inspection brief. PCAOB.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2019). AS 2110: Identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement. PCAOB.
Turel, A., Driskill, M., & Martin, G. (2017). Audit quality and financial reporting quality: A review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 38, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2016.10.001
Xiao, T., Geng, C., & Yuan, C. (2020). Audit effort and audit quality: Evidence from engagement-level data. China Journal of Accounting Research, 13(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2020.03.002
Zhang, Y. (2017). The effect of structured brainstorming on audit team performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 55(3), 713–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12159
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Evans O. N. D. Ocansey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
