Audit Quality From a Service Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Audit quality is a multidimensional and latent construct that researchers struggle to evaluate and interpret. This paper follows an interdisciplinary approach by systematically reviewing the literature on audit quality evaluation from a service quality perspective. This service perspective, aligned to stakeholder theory, allows us to consider various stakeholder perspectives. We review the literature through the AUDITQUAL audit quality dimensions to identify areas for further research. These higher‐order audit quality dimensions reflect the competence, independence, relationship, and service quality aspects of audit quality. We follow a systematic literature review methodology informed by the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement and supported by the Rayyan software tool. Our review shows that the competence, independence, and relationship dimensions usually form the foundation for audit quality research and assumptions. In contrast, only one aspect of client attributes within these dimensions—namely, earnings management—is well developed. Furthermore, the service (functional) quality dimension is shown to have the most potential for future insight into audit quality evaluation. Finally, only a few studies have empirically tested the audit quality construct in a multidimensional sense as most have focused on only one or two dimensions using proxies. Empirical research into audit quality can benefit from taking a service quality view to broaden our understanding and testing thereof.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".