Desarrollo territorial y cooperación internacional en Colombia

Numerous methods have been used in prior research to study auditor scepticism. Hurtt (2010) notes that it is difficult to draw inferences from such a body of research due to inconsistent measurement. Formal training is not an appropriate factor for measuring scepticism skill, or capacity to adopt a professionally sceptical state (Cohen et al, 2014; Westermann et al, 2014; Hurtt 2010), because all auditors undertake the same education (within same jurisdictions, if not comparable internationally); nor is experience an appropriate base upon which to measure scepticism skill, due to the inconsistency of research findings.

Some utilise audit tasks alone as a means of comparing auditor judgements to arrive at between-subjects measures. Examples include participant preparation of audit- related questions, and self-rating of perceived accountability and (dis)comfort (Kang et al, 2015). Examples of prior empirical studies that provide relevant background to inform the method adopted for this research are summarised in Appendix 2, beginning on page 226.

Such contributions from prior empirical research are very helpful for the purpose of clarifying relationships between scepticism-relevant variables. However, these studies do not employ methods which could be used to address the current research problem or research questions: None of these studies attempt to define a level of PS with which auditor performance can be compared, from either the Trait perspective or a situational State perspective. Further, there remains a missing link in the Trait and State discussion, being the situational variable(s) which interact with the relatively static Trait variable to influence the various States. Situational variables

are acknowledged and accommodated in some studies, but there is no consensus about definition. For the purposes of this research, that link is referred to as Skill.

Finally, the vast majority of prior studies utilise audit scenarios and recruit auditors as subjects, which does not facilitate inclusion of others for the purpose of differentiating a Professional Scepticism level from alternate levels of scepticism. Audit-specific tasks can not be administered to non-audit participants because they will not understand how to do what is required for the task.

Therefore, to achieve the objectives of this research, it was necessary to focus upon the prior conceptual literature, which discusses levels of scepticism, and offers potential explanations for the variables which link trait scepticism to various scepticism states. The conceptual literature was drawn upon to develop a research model to enable exploration of the Skill variable, and to the broader psychometric literature was explored for the purpose of adapting an appropriate scepticism measurement method to accommodate that model.

Studies which address the trait aspects of scepticism utilise instruments such as Hurtt’s (2010) Scepticism Scale, and the Wrightsman (1991) and Rotter (1967) Trust Scales, introduced in section 2.3. Quadackers et al (2014) propose that the Hurtt (2010) scale measures scepticism from a Neutrality perspective, whereas an inverted trust scale (Rotter’s 1967 scale) measures scepticism from a Presumptive Doubt perspective. Comparing the two scales in an audit-task experiment, Quadackers et al (2014) found that they equally predict professional scepticism in low risk conditions, but only the inverted trust scale results were significant in high risk conditions, which is attributed to Neutrality being less effective than Presumptive Doubt in circumstances where heightened scepticism is necessary. Given that higher risk audits are of greatest concern to auditors, Quadackers et al (2014) suggest that their

use of an inverted trust scale provides a generally more reliable measure of professional scepticism than the Hurtt (2010) scale.

In some studies, the Hurtt (2010) scale has signalled no significant difference in professional scepticism between manipulated groups (Carpenter & Reimers, 2013), which is attributed to the fixed nature of a trait (Cohen et al, 2104; Carpenter & Reimers, 2013; Hurtt, 2010) as measured by this scale. However, despite acknowledging that professional scepticism consists of both trait and skill aspects (Cohen et al, 2014; Westermann et al, 2014; Hurtt, 2010), both the above types of scales attempt to measure only the trait aspect. Hurtt (2010) notes that use of single- dimension constructs to measure professional scepticism make it difficult to identify which sub-construct is being measured.

Other research 8 attempts to measure both aspects, but do so using a combination of the Hurtt (2010) trait scale plus a series of audit tasks. However, in such studies, the task results do not combine with the trait scale results in such a way as to provide an overall single measure of professional scepticism. Also, the tasks used in such studies are not appropriate for administration to non-audit participants to derive a ‘professional’ level of scepticism because the activities are audit-specific.

More recently, Peytcheva (2014) utilised combined measures. This project involved use of “two different state skepticism prompts … [one] based on the presumptive doubt view of professional skepticism … [plus] a cheater-detection prompt based on social contracts theory” (Peytcheva, 2014, p.28). This approach contrasts substantially with the other research described above because one of the constructs is reversed. That is, Presumptive Doubt has previously been associated with trait scepticism, such as in the work of Glover & Prawitt (2014) and Quadackers et al

8

For example, see Khan and Harding, 2013; Carpenter & Reimers, 2013.

46

(2014). However, it is consistent that Peytcheva (2014, p. 28) refers to the Social Contract mechanism in terms of “activating” a “frame of mind”, which has previously been associated with the more fluid scepticism. In this sense, the Presumptive Doubt construct is applied to explore whether an appropriate state has been invoked by the use of scepticism prompts. This measure (involving assessment of audit-specific task performance, given the presence or absence of prompts, against a normative solution) was more successful for students, but not auditors, than the cheater-detection prompt, which produced no effect for either group (Peytcheva, 2014). The Hurtt (2010) scale was utilised to measure trait scepticism, though no significant differences were observed between groups, and overall results were again significant for students but not auditors (Peytcheva, 2014).

A further consideration, highlighted by Peytcheva (2014) is that more must be understood about the relative importance of trait versus state scepticism (Nelson, 2009; Hurtt, 2010; Carpenter and Reimers, 2011; Peytcheva 2014) when constructing an overall measure.