|
Acknowledgements
The author indebted to Haw May Lin for
helpful and constructive comments, Annie Han for her financial
support, Augustine Han and Patricia Ho for helping recruit the
participants in this study as well as the participants for taking time
to fill the questionnaire.
In addition, the author gratefully acknowledges the use of Nilai
College Library, the KLSE Library and Public Information Centre, the
MIA Resource Centre and the National Library as well as the respective
helpful librarians.
Abstract
This study examines the
existence of expectation gap by evaluating the users?perceptions with
the auditing standards. This study also explores the users?
perceptions of the quality and usefulness of the auditors' report
which reflects the effectiveness of an auditors' report as a
communication medium between auditor and users.
The result of this study may affect the auditing setting process with
relevant modification of existing auditing standards. In addition, the
result of this study may affect the audit academic environment in
educating users with better understanding on auditing knowledge since
knowledge of the users is seen having influences to the size of
expectation gap.
The expectation gap was found to be wide particularly on the issues of
the auditors' responsibilities on omission and misstatement reporting,
fraud prevention and detection as well as the 100 per cent examination
in the audit procedures. To a lesser extent, an expectation gap was
also found concerning the auditors' responsibility for producing the
financial statements, soundness of the internal control, using the
work of other auditor or expert and the responsibility of auditor in
an annual report. There was no expectation gap found on the issue of
judgement exercising. The usefulness of auditors' report was found to
be minimum in reducing the expectation gap.
It is a critical and pity scene that users were found to rely on the
audited financial statements for decision making based their own
expectation towards the auditor without knowing that their expectation
were beyond what auditor actually provided. Users found that the
auditors' report has been opaquely written and requires readers to
have auditing knowledge to understand the opinion rendered.
|