English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Researchers have tended to assume that Anglo-American theories and practices are equally applicable to other countries with their unique contextual environments. The aim of this research is to show that the theoretical model and empirical research findings in Anglo-American countries, with respect to evaluation of internal control systems, are not applicable to China. Specifically, there are two approaches to evaluate internal control systems: one is a risk-based audit approach, and the other is a control-based audit approach. Morrill, Morrill, and Kopp (2012) show that Canadian accountants who relied on a risk-first approach identified significantly more internal control deficiencies than accountants who relied on a control-first approach. Contrary to the research findings in Canada, this study provides experimental evidence that Chinese auditors who relied on a control-first approach identified significantly more internal control deficiencies than auditors who relied on a risk-first approach. The findings have implications for global convergence of auditing practices.

An experimental examination of judgments of Chinese professional auditors in evaluating internal control systems