Criteria of Assessment of the Auditor’s Judgment Evidence

Nadiia Manko


The article presents the results of the study on the formation of an independent opinion of the reliability of financial accounting, which is reflected in the auditor’s report and is based on his intermediate conclusions. It has been established that determining the sufficiency of evidence presents a problem that consists in the auditor’s decision on the extent to which they are sufficient to prove the accuracy of his opinion as to the reliability of financial accounting. The study of methodological approaches to assessing the adequacy of audit evidence in the process of performing the audit task was conducted in order to provide evidence of the audit opinion regarding the reliability of the statements of management personnel, contained in the financial report indicators.

The article presents the results of the research of scientific approaches concerning the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of audit evidence. Based on the analysis of the provisions of the International Standards on Quality Control, Audit, Inspection, Other Assurance and Related Services (ISA) and literary sources, the main criteria for evaluating audit evidence were identified, their content and terms of security were determined. The relationship between audit procedures and qualitative aspects of financial reporting was considered. Taking into account the requirements of the rules for assessing the reliability of the evidence, provided by the ISA 500 “Audit Evidence”, division of evidence into more and less reliable was made; generalized factors for the consideration in the process of assessing the reliability of evidence were generated. The process of assessing evidence at the stages of the audit task was considered and a conceptual model for assessing the adequacy of audit evidence was constructed.

On the basis of the conducted research, it was concluded that the evidence of the auditor’s judgment regarding the chosen form of the audit opinion depends directly on the results of the integrated assessment of the collected audit evidence at all stages of the audit task. The results of the study provide an opportunity to adequately elaborate the process of planning the audit procedures, for the purpose of obtaining relevant audit evidence, their assessment of compliance with the established criteria, the auditor’s making well-grounded decisions, which will reduce the risks of errors in the auditor’s judgment.


audit evidence; evaluation criteria; approval of management personnel; reliability; adequacy; audit procedures


Arens, A. (1995). Audit. Moscow: Finansy i statistika (in Russian)
[Аренс, А. (1995). Аудит. Москва: Финансы и статистика].

Azrilijan, A. N. (Ed.). (2004). Bol'shoj jekonomicheskij slovar' [Big Economic Dictionary] (6th ed.). Moscow: Institut novoj jekonomiki (in Russian)
[Азрилиян, А. Н. (Ред.). (2004). Большой экономический словарь (6-е изд.). Москва: Институт новой экономики].

Bychkova, S. M. (1999). Dokazatel'stva v audite [Evidence in audit]. Moscow: Finansy i statistika (in Russian)
[Бычкова, С. М. (1999). Доказательства в аудите. Москва: Финансы и статистика].

Danilevskij, Ju. A., Shapiguzov, S. M., Remizov, N. A., & Starovojtova, E. V. (2002). Audit (2nd ed.). Moscow: FBK-PRESS (in Russian)
[Данилевский, Ю. А., Шапигузов, С. М., Ремизов, Н. А., & Старовойтова, Е. В. (2002). Аудит (2-е изд.). Москва: ФБК-ПРЕСС].

Defliese, Ph., Jaenicke. H., O’Reilly, V., Hirsch, M. (1990). Montgomery’s Auditing. New York: Wiley.

Drobyshevskij, N. P. (2004). Revizija i audit [Revision and audit]. Minsk: Misanta (in Russian)
[Дробышевский, Н. П. (2004). Ревизия и аудит. Минск: Мисанта].

International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2017). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements (2016–2017 Edition, Volume 1). Retrieved from

Kuz'minskij, A. N. (1996). Audit [Audit]. Kiev: Uchetinform (in Russian)
[Кузьминский, А. Н. (1996). Аудит. Киев: Учетинформ].

Maksimova, G. V., & Shuplecov, A. F. (2005). Ocenka kachestva auditorskoj dejatel'nosti [Evaluation of the quality of audit activities]. In A. F. Shuplecov (Ed.), Strategicheskoe upravlenie jekonomikoj na raznyh urovnjah organizacii (pp. 101–143). Irkutsk: BGUJeP (in Russsian)
[Максимова, Г. В., & Шуплецов, А. Ф. (2005). Оценка качества аудиторской деятельности. В А. Ф. Шуплецов (Ред.), Стратегическое управление экономикой на разных уровнях организации (с. 101–143). Иркутск: БГУЭП].

Pozharytska, I. M. (2013). Profesiine sudzhennia v audyti: teoriia i praktyka [Professional judgment in audit: theory and practice]. Simferopol: Arial (in Ukrainian)
[Пожарицька, І. М. (2013). Професійне судження в аудиті: теорія і практика. Сімферополь: Аріал].

Proskurina, N. M. (2011). Protsedurne zabezpechennia audytu. Teoriia ta praktyka [Procedural provision of audit. Theory and practice]. Kyiv: Informatsiino- analitychne ahentstvo (in Ukrainian)
[Проскуріна, Н. М. (2011). Процедурне забезпечення аудиту. Теорія та практика. Київ: Інформаційно- аналітичне агентство].

Robertson, Dzh. (1993). Audit. Moscow: KPMG : Kontakt (in Russian)
[Робертсон, Дж. (1993). Аудит. Москва: KPMG : Контакт].

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Nadiia Manko

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.