Do PCAOB Inspections Change the Effect of Litigation Risk on Audit Quality?

Synopsis The research problem This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime. Motivation The establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarba...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe International journal of accounting Vol. 60; no. 1
Main Authors Chen, Po-Chang, Moul, Charles, Reffett, Andrew
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Urbana World Scientific Publishing Company 01.03.2025
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte., Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Synopsis The research problem This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime. Motivation The establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act marked a fundamental change in the regulatory environment for the auditors. At the core of the PCAOB’s oversight of the audits of public companies are the inspections of individual audit engagements. While prior studies have found a positive effect of the PCAOB inspection program on audit quality, little is known about whether and how the regulatory risk imposed by PCAOB inspections influences the effect of litigation risk on audit quality. To the extent that both regulatory oversight and litigation threat share the common objective of motivating auditors to exert sufficient effort and perform high-quality audits, we are motivated to examine whether and how the stringent regulatory environment under the PCAOB regime affects auditors’ perception of, and response to, litigation risk. Hypothesis We posit that the significant and constant regulatory threat imposed by PCAOB inspections may change auditors’ perception of litigation, which is more remote and less frequent relative to regulatory inspections, such that litigation risk has a smaller effect on audit quality/effort when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk arising from the PCAOB inspections. However, there also exists opposing arguments that would suggest a nondecreasing effect of litigation risk on audit quality in the presence of high regulatory risk. Thus, we present our hypothesis in the null form: the effects of litigation risk on audit quality are not associated with regulatory risk under the PCAOB inspection regime. Target population Researchers, audit practitioners, regulatory authorities, policymakers, and firms. Adopted methodology We employ multivariate regression analysis featuring the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation to test our hypothesis. In additional tests, we also use the probit estimation for binary dependent variables. Analyses Using a sample of 34,559 client-firm year observations for the period between 2005 and 2019, we estimate a multivariate regression model to examine whether and how the audit deficiencies identified in the PCAOB inspections influence the effect of litigation risk on audit quality exhibited at the client level. Findings Our main findings show that, while regulatory risk (proxied by PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies) and litigation risk (proxied by lawsuits filed against auditors/firms) each has a positive effect on audit quality, the interaction term of the two is negatively associated with audit quality. This rejects our null hypothesis and indicates that litigation risk has a smaller motivational effect when the auditors are faced with greater regulatory risk. Similar results are obtained using audit fees, financial restatements, and the propensity to report small profits as the alternative measures of audit quality. We further validate those results with alternative measures of regulatory risk and litigation risk. Our empirical evidence corroborates the views of audit practitioners, surveyed in Westermann et al. (2019), that auditors are increasingly concerned about regulatory risk, as opposed to litigation risk, under the PCAOB regime.
AbstractList Synopsis The research problem This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime. Motivation The establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act marked a fundamental change in the regulatory environment for the auditors. At the core of the PCAOB’s oversight of the audits of public companies are the inspections of individual audit engagements. While prior studies have found a positive effect of the PCAOB inspection program on audit quality, little is known about whether and how the regulatory risk imposed by PCAOB inspections influences the effect of litigation risk on audit quality. To the extent that both regulatory oversight and litigation threat share the common objective of motivating auditors to exert sufficient effort and perform high-quality audits, we are motivated to examine whether and how the stringent regulatory environment under the PCAOB regime affects auditors’ perception of, and response to, litigation risk. Hypothesis We posit that the significant and constant regulatory threat imposed by PCAOB inspections may change auditors’ perception of litigation, which is more remote and less frequent relative to regulatory inspections, such that litigation risk has a smaller effect on audit quality/effort when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk arising from the PCAOB inspections. However, there also exists opposing arguments that would suggest a nondecreasing effect of litigation risk on audit quality in the presence of high regulatory risk. Thus, we present our hypothesis in the null form: the effects of litigation risk on audit quality are not associated with regulatory risk under the PCAOB inspection regime. Target population Researchers, audit practitioners, regulatory authorities, policymakers, and firms. Adopted methodology We employ multivariate regression analysis featuring the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation to test our hypothesis. In additional tests, we also use the probit estimation for binary dependent variables. Analyses Using a sample of 34,559 client-firm year observations for the period between 2005 and 2019, we estimate a multivariate regression model to examine whether and how the audit deficiencies identified in the PCAOB inspections influence the effect of litigation risk on audit quality exhibited at the client level. Findings Our main findings show that, while regulatory risk (proxied by PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies) and litigation risk (proxied by lawsuits filed against auditors/firms) each has a positive effect on audit quality, the interaction term of the two is negatively associated with audit quality. This rejects our null hypothesis and indicates that litigation risk has a smaller motivational effect when the auditors are faced with greater regulatory risk. Similar results are obtained using audit fees, financial restatements, and the propensity to report small profits as the alternative measures of audit quality. We further validate those results with alternative measures of regulatory risk and litigation risk. Our empirical evidence corroborates the views of audit practitioners, surveyed in Westermann et al. (2019), that auditors are increasingly concerned about regulatory risk, as opposed to litigation risk, under the PCAOB regime.
SynopsisThe research problemThis study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime.MotivationThe establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act marked a fundamental change in the regulatory environment for the auditors. At the core of the PCAOB’s oversight of the audits of public companies are the inspections of individual audit engagements. While prior studies have found a positive effect of the PCAOB inspection program on audit quality, little is known about whether and how the regulatory risk imposed by PCAOB inspections influences the effect of litigation risk on audit quality. To the extent that both regulatory oversight and litigation threat share the common objective of motivating auditors to exert sufficient effort and perform high-quality audits, we are motivated to examine whether and how the stringent regulatory environment under the PCAOB regime affects auditors’ perception of, and response to, litigation risk.HypothesisWe posit that the significant and constant regulatory threat imposed by PCAOB inspections may change auditors’ perception of litigation, which is more remote and less frequent relative to regulatory inspections, such that litigation risk has a smaller effect on audit quality/effort when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk arising from the PCAOB inspections. However, there also exists opposing arguments that would suggest a nondecreasing effect of litigation risk on audit quality in the presence of high regulatory risk. Thus, we present our hypothesis in the null form: the effects of litigation risk on audit quality are not associated with regulatory risk under the PCAOB inspection regime.Target populationResearchers, audit practitioners, regulatory authorities, policymakers, and firms.Adopted methodologyWe employ multivariate regression analysis featuring the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation to test our hypothesis. In additional tests, we also use the probit estimation for binary dependent variables.AnalysesUsing a sample of 34,559 client-firm year observations for the period between 2005 and 2019, we estimate a multivariate regression model to examine whether and how the audit deficiencies identified in the PCAOB inspections influence the effect of litigation risk on audit quality exhibited at the client level.FindingsOur main findings show that, while regulatory risk (proxied by PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies) and litigation risk (proxied by lawsuits filed against auditors/firms) each has a positive effect on audit quality, the interaction term of the two is negatively associated with audit quality. This rejects our null hypothesis and indicates that litigation risk has a smaller motivational effect when the auditors are faced with greater regulatory risk. Similar results are obtained using audit fees, financial restatements, and the propensity to report small profits as the alternative measures of audit quality. We further validate those results with alternative measures of regulatory risk and litigation risk. Our empirical evidence corroborates the views of audit practitioners, surveyed in Westermann et al. (2019), that auditors are increasingly concerned about regulatory risk, as opposed to litigation risk, under the PCAOB regime.
Author Moul, Charles
Chen, Po-Chang
Reffett, Andrew
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Po-Chang
  surname: Chen
  fullname: Chen, Po-Chang
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Charles
  surname: Moul
  fullname: Moul, Charles
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Andrew
  surname: Reffett
  fullname: Reffett, Andrew
BookMark eNplkM1OwzAQhC0EEm3hAbhZ4hzwepM6PqESClRUKr_nyHHs1qXEJU6E-vYkKuLS00g78-1qZ0iOK18ZQi6AXQHE_PoNmIxjNmY8ThgDKY7IgHPACCXiMRn0dtT7p2QYwpoxztOED8jTnafP2WRxS2dV2BrdOF8Fmq1UtTS0WRk6tbabUm_p3DVuqfoAfXXhk3Y6aUvX0JdWbVyzuzkjJ1Ztgjn_0xH5uJ--Z4_RfPEwyybzSCNHEcUo0rHUsjDCSsZBS1HaFK0CrVX3ixRQKG7HhShASK0TBCPiRKWYpgVCiSNyud-7rf13a0KTr31bV93JHCFFTKCrokvBPqVrH0JtbL6t3ZeqdzmwvO8sP-isY9ie-fH1pgzamapx1ul_9BD5BXrCbTA
Cites_doi 10.2308/ajpt-10292
10.2308/acch.2010.24.2.189
10.1093/rfs/hhn053
10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.779
10.1506/car.25.1.6
10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002
10.1111/1911-3846.12454
10.1016/0165-4101(94)90008-6
10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.001
10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00023-9
10.2307/2491047
10.1080/16081625.2002.10510607
10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01041.x
10.1111/1911-3846.12300
10.2308/accr.2009.84.5.1521
10.2308/accr-51054
10.2308/accr.2008.83.5.1315
10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.04.002
10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.653
10.2308/acch-50077
10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.93
10.1016/j.racreg.2011.10.001
10.2308/aud.2005.24.s-1.5
10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2012.11.002
10.1111/1475-679X.12485
10.1111/1911-3846.12467
10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002
10.1016/j.jacceco.2016.02.001
10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.11.006
10.2308/accr-51642
10.2308/accr-51948
10.2308/ciia-51484
10.1016/S0165-4101(97)00017-7
10.1111/1911-3846.12480
10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.009
10.1111/1475-679X.12151
10.1506/4XR4-KT5V-E8CN-91GX
10.2308/ajpt-51832
10.2307/2491218
10.2308/ajpt-50003
10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00547.x
10.2308/acch-50323
10.1506/5FQ9-ANEA-T8J0-U6GY
10.2308/TAR-2018-0151
10.1506/LLTH-JXQV-8CEW-8MXD
10.1506/E023-337T-180P-18U4
10.1111/1475-679X.12041
10.1177/0148558X13505596
10.2308/ajpt-50374
10.2308/ajpt-52333
10.2308/accr-10217
10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00273.x
10.2307/2491438
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2025, Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois
2025. Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois
Copyright_xml – notice: 2025, Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois
– notice: 2025. Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
8BJ
FQK
JBE
DOI 10.1142/S1094406024500197
DatabaseName CrossRef
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
DatabaseTitleList CrossRef

International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Education
Business
EISSN 2213-3933
ExternalDocumentID 10_1142_S1094406024500197
S1094406024500197
GroupedDBID --K
--M
-~X
.~1
0R~
1B1
1~.
29J
4.4
457
4G.
7-5
8P~
AAOAW
AAQXK
AAYOK
ABDPE
ABFRF
ABMVD
ABWVN
ACHRH
ACNCT
ACNTT
ACRPL
ADBBV
ADEZE
ADMHG
ADMUD
ADNMO
ADSJI
AEFWE
AEKER
AFTJW
AGUBO
AGYEJ
AHQJS
AI.
AKVCP
ALEQD
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ASPBG
AVWKF
AZFZN
BLXMC
BNSAS
DU5
EBS
EJD
EO8
EO9
EP2
EP3
FDB
FGOYB
FIRID
FNPLU
G-Q
GBLVA
HZ~
H~9
IHE
J1W
M41
MO0
MS~
NEJ
O9-
OAUVE
P-8
P-9
PC.
PQQKQ
Q38
R2-
RIG
ROL
RPZ
RWJ
SDF
SDG
SDH
SDP
SEB
SES
TN5
TWZ
UNMZH
UPT
VH1
WH7
YYQ
ZUP
AAYXX
AGQPQ
CITATION
8BJ
FQK
JBE
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c3237-437869c9be7f9021c97df83fa1cca142971ba2f6b7b179cc531e745a8388b31d3
ISSN 1094-4060
IngestDate Mon Jun 30 11:57:11 EDT 2025
Tue Aug 05 12:05:38 EDT 2025
Sun Mar 30 10:49:04 EDT 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Keywords audit quality
PCAOB inspections
regulatory risk
litigation risk
Language English
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3237-437869c9be7f9021c97df83fa1cca142971ba2f6b7b179cc531e745a8388b31d3
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ORCID 0000-0001-5080-3088
0000-0001-6628-8228
PQID 3183351944
PQPubID 36357
ParticipantIDs proquest_journals_3183351944
worldscientific_primary_S1094406024500197
crossref_primary_10_1142_S1094406024500197
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 20250300
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2025-03-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 03
  year: 2025
  text: 20250300
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace Urbana
PublicationPlace_xml – name: Urbana
PublicationTitle The International journal of accounting
PublicationYear 2025
Publisher World Scientific Publishing Company
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte., Ltd
Publisher_xml – name: World Scientific Publishing Company
– name: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte., Ltd
References S1094406024500197BIB025
S1094406024500197BIB024
S1094406024500197BIB023
S1094406024500197BIB022
S1094406024500197BIB062
S1094406024500197BIB029
S1094406024500197BIB028
S1094406024500197BIB027
S1094406024500197BIB026
Pratt J. (S1094406024500197BIB057) 1994; 69
S1094406024500197BIB060
S1094406024500197BIB014
S1094406024500197BIB013
S1094406024500197BIB012
S1094406024500197BIB056
S1094406024500197BIB011
S1094406024500197BIB055
S1094406024500197BIB010
S1094406024500197BIB054
S1094406024500197BIB052
S1094406024500197BIB019
S1094406024500197BIB018
S1094406024500197BIB017
S1094406024500197BIB016
Cox J. D. (S1094406024500197BIB021) 2006; 106
S1094406024500197BIB015
S1094406024500197BIB050
Schwartz R. (S1094406024500197BIB063) 1997; 72
S1094406024500197BIB003
S1094406024500197BIB047
S1094406024500197BIB002
S1094406024500197BIB046
S1094406024500197BIB001
S1094406024500197BIB044
S1094406024500197BIB043
S1094406024500197BIB042
S1094406024500197BIB041
S1094406024500197BIB040
S1094406024500197BIB009
S1094406024500197BIB008
S1094406024500197BIB007
S1094406024500197BIB006
S1094406024500197BIB005
S1094406024500197BIB049
S1094406024500197BIB004
S1094406024500197BIB048
Shakespeare C. (S1094406024500197BIB067) 2008; 3
S1094406024500197BIB034
S1094406024500197BIB033
S1094406024500197BIB032
S1094406024500197BIB031
S1094406024500197BIB030
Hackenbrack K. (S1094406024500197BIB038) 1996; 71
S1094406024500197BIB039
S1094406024500197BIB037
S1094406024500197BIB072
S1094406024500197BIB071
S1094406024500197BIB070
References_xml – ident: S1094406024500197BIB033
  doi: 10.2308/ajpt-10292
– volume: 3
  start-page: 333
  issue: 2
  year: 2008
  ident: S1094406024500197BIB067
  publication-title: Journal of Business & Technology Law
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB022
  doi: 10.2308/acch.2010.24.2.189
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB056
  doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhn053
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB054
  doi: 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.779
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB030
  doi: 10.1506/car.25.1.6
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB046
  doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB071
  doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12454
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB025
  doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(94)90008-6
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB004
  doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.001
– volume: 69
  start-page: 639
  issue: 4
  year: 1994
  ident: S1094406024500197BIB057
  publication-title: The Accounting Review
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB009
  doi: 10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00023-9
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB044
  doi: 10.2307/2491047
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB029
  doi: 10.1080/16081625.2002.10510607
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB023
  doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01041.x
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB001
  doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12300
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB031
  doi: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.5.1521
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB005
  doi: 10.2308/accr-51054
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB070
  doi: 10.2308/accr.2008.83.5.1315
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB032
  doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.04.002
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB015
  doi: 10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.653
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB019
  doi: 10.2308/acch-50077
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB049
  doi: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.93
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB014
  doi: 10.1016/j.racreg.2011.10.001
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB024
  doi: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.s-1.5
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB037
  doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2012.11.002
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB072
  doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12485
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB042
  doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12467
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB027
  doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB048
  doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2016.02.001
– volume: 106
  start-page: 1587
  issue: 7
  year: 2006
  ident: S1094406024500197BIB021
  publication-title: Columbia Law Review
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB017
  doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.11.006
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB047
  doi: 10.2308/accr-51642
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB003
  doi: 10.2308/accr-51948
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB040
  doi: 10.2308/ciia-51484
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB013
  doi: 10.1016/S0165-4101(97)00017-7
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB034
  doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12480
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB028
  doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.009
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB026
  doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12151
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB039
  doi: 10.1506/4XR4-KT5V-E8CN-91GX
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB016
  doi: 10.2308/ajpt-51832
– volume: 71
  start-page: 43
  issue: 1
  year: 1996
  ident: S1094406024500197BIB038
  publication-title: The Accounting Review
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB052
  doi: 10.2307/2491218
– volume: 72
  start-page: 385
  issue: 3
  year: 1997
  ident: S1094406024500197BIB063
  publication-title: The Accounting Review.
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB011
  doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50003
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB008
  doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00547.x
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB041
  doi: 10.2308/acch-50323
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB010
  doi: 10.1506/5FQ9-ANEA-T8J0-U6GY
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB018
  doi: 10.2308/TAR-2018-0151
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB043
  doi: 10.1506/LLTH-JXQV-8CEW-8MXD
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB050
  doi: 10.1506/E023-337T-180P-18U4
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB006
  doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12041
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB060
  doi: 10.1177/0148558X13505596
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB002
  doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50374
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB012
  doi: 10.2308/ajpt-52333
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB062
  doi: 10.2308/accr-10217
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB007
  doi: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00273.x
– ident: S1094406024500197BIB055
  doi: 10.2307/2491438
SSID ssj0022852
Score 2.3716218
Snippet Synopsis The research problem This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory...
SynopsisThe research problemThis study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory...
SourceID proquest
crossref
worldscientific
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
Publisher
SubjectTerms Audit quality
Auditor changes
Audits
Dependent variables
Financial restatements
Hypotheses
Inspections
Litigation
Motivation
Null hypothesis
Policy making
Profits
Regression analysis
Regulatory reform
Threats
Title Do PCAOB Inspections Change the Effect of Litigation Risk on Audit Quality?
URI http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1094406024500197
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3183351944
Volume 60
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3NS-wwEA8-hce7iB9P3vpFDl5Uur4mbZOcxE9EQcW3grfSNCkIshVdD3rwb3fy0bTad1Av3SWE6W7m1-lM5jcThDYkKcEL4BCm6phG8L5VUaH-VlEqFJFSKyaUZfmeZyfXyelNetNu6Nvqkokcli__rSv5jlZhDPRqqmS_oNkgFAbgO-gXrqBhuH5Kx4f19uXB3sW-SfnbiknDe3H1Atah9K2JTRrg1vXSAF1fWTK52eVQt5Nt10Pj-QO_bxQolc1eYafDRBEOmGi5Ac54XdaRvXvQYv1018nph-SOIZG4pFSHT-m3Hkjacq-cgbN0H2uDLK-pu3PWs2YxxJEQrLrDA4bajhEC-KDCdcJozLGf0YFd38onpmvsPyPSSCRJajxV1r7SAtGwN-cHmiEQUBiLOHwNZCBCeOry4v5H-vw33GinJ-K9B9OGJbO2x-1jWI6OnzKaQ7M-wMB7Di3zaEqPF9DPpr5hwRzT7Sk9i-jssMYWQLgDIOwAhAFA2AEI1xVuAYQNgDB8WgBhD6Dd3-j6-Gh0cBL50zWikhLKooQynolSSM0qAZ5eKZiqOK2KGB5q-OOCxbIgVSaZBKNdlmCsNUvSglPOJY0VXULT43qs_yCsMproishCgUMODz-n4KZL41sLnVHKB2irWbH83jVRyV1BPMl7yztAq82a5h7bj7l585ijJJNkgDY_rHMQ2RO1_IW5K-hXC_FVND15eNJr4G9O5LqFyhtgmXmT
linkProvider Elsevier
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do+PCAOB+Inspections+Change+the+Effect+of+Litigation+Risk+on+Audit+Quality%3F&rft.jtitle=The+International+journal+of+accounting&rft.au=Chen%2C+Po-Chang&rft.au=Moul%2C+Charles&rft.au=Reffett%2C+Andrew&rft.date=2025-03-01&rft.pub=World+Scientific+Publishing+Company&rft.issn=1094-4060&rft.eissn=2213-3933&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1142%2FS1094406024500197&rft.externalDocID=S1094406024500197
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1094-4060&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1094-4060&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1094-4060&client=summon