International Standard on Auditing No. 260 and Audit Quality: Evidence from Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to explore the extent of external auditors awareness of the requirements of the International Standard on Auditing No. 260 (Communications with those charged with governance) on audit quality and to shed light on the effectiveness of the communication process based on auditors actual experience. A mixed method approach was employed to achieve the study objectives. The analysis of 116 questionnaires concluded that the requirements of the ISA 260 enhance audit quality, but the two-way communication between Jordanian auditors and the audit committee is ineffective from external auditor’s perception. The study also found that audit committees do not support external auditor when disagreements arise between auditors and their client management on accounting treatments. The qualitative interviews confirmed the quantitative results and revealed several explanations among which: 1) lack of qualified directors, 2) lack of a clear policy in selecting board members, 3) meetings with auditors are routinely held, and 4) insufficient oversight by the securities commission. The interviews also revealed that the recent version of Jordanian corporate governance has two potential factors have been viewed to improve the effectiveness of the communication process that are, the appointment of a ‘governance liaison officer’ who, among other responsibilities, supervise and document audit committee meetings with the auditor, and the use of cumulative voting technique in selecting board members. The findings of the study could be beneficial for regulators by ensuring the best implementation of cumulative voting to increase the representation of qualified members so that the communication process will be greatly enhanced.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".