ACCG 925 - AUDITING & ASSURANCE SERVICES

Semester 2, 2015
Group Assignment 25%
Due: week 8 - 28 September 2015 at 4pm
This assignment is to be completed in the groups of four (4) five (5) students which
have already been formed (primarily) within your seminar class. Seminar leaders will
have finalised and recorded group details during the Week 2 & 3 seminars. Note that it
is your responsibility to contact the Unit Convenor if you are not in a group by the end
of Week 3.
The application of professional skepticism by auditors is important to audit quality.
However, various definitions of, and perspectives on, professional skepticism exist in the
auditing literature. We propose a professional skepticism continuum that acknowledges
that the appropriate application of professional skepticism will depend on the risk
characteristics of the account and assertion. We also lay out the different structural levels
where professional skepticism is applied and where threats to its appropriate application can
arise. We argue that regulation can actually threaten the appropriate application of auditor
skepticism if regulation and/or inspection focus is not properly aligned with relevant audit
risks. Finally, we provide some ideas and recommendations on how the application of
professional skepticism might be enhanced on the part of auditors, as well as how other key
stakeholders can contribute to its effective application (Glover & Prawitt, 2014, p. 1).

Glover, S. M., & Prawitt, D. F. (2014). Enhancing Auditor Professional Skepticism: The
Professional Skepticism Continuum. Current Issues in Auditing, 8(2), pp. 1-10.

Required: Discuss the above statement by reviewing research papers published since
2008. Include the following in your discussion:

The definition and application of professional skepticism

Factors that may impact on professional skepticism
Audit quality & professional skepticism
Threats to professional skepticism
Enhance auditor professional skepticism

Page 1 of 5

Important information regarding the assignment is as follows:

Minimum number of academic references - The use of at least seven academic references
must be appropriately used and referenced.
Length - Maximum 10 pages. The page limit excludes the reference list. Font size must be 12
with one and a half line spacing using Arial or Times New Roman.
One Submission of the assignment must be made for each group by the due date
electronically via the iLearn online system (Turnitin).
The assignment should clearly state the names and student numbers of all group members and
the name of their seminar leader including the seminar day/time (refer to the group
coversheet which is available on ilearn under assignment section).
The assignment will be assessed using the marking rubic (included in this document). The
mark allocated for the assignment will be based on the individual contributions made by
group members. All groups are to complete and sign the Group Agreement Form prior to
commencement of the assignment. [This form needs to be retained by the group and may be
requested by the Unit Convenor.] Upon completion of the assignment, each group member is
to complete and email the Self and Peer Assessment Form to the Unit Convenor by 5pm,
29 September 2015. Both forms are available on ilearn.
Groups who have not submitted the assignment prior to the deadline will receive a late
penalty except for cases in which a Disruption to Studies application is made and approved.
Assignments not received at this time will result in a penalty of 20% of the total awarded
marks per 24 hour period or part thereof that the submission is late. For example, 25 hrs late
will incur a 40% late penalty. Assignments will not be accepted later than 72 hours after the
due date and time except for cases in which a Disruption to Studies application is made and
approved.
Incorrect submissions (e.g. submitting the wrong file/old version/assignment for a different
unit, etc.) will also be awarded a mark of zero (0). It is your responsibility to ensure that you
submit the correct file. You may resubmit until the due date and time. Any submission on the
due date and time will be taken to be final. No further resubmission will be allowed.
No complaints in relation to non-performing/absent group members will be considered on or
after the due date and time. All such complaints should be directed to your seminar leader in
the first instance, and subsequently to the Unit Convenor if these remain unresolved.
Complaints must be brought to our attention early in the semester.

Page 2 of 5

Marking Rubic for the Group Assignment

Group members:
Criteria
1. Aim(s)/
Objective(s)
[2 marks]
2. Main body
[20 marks]

3. Conclusion
[5 marks]

Score
____%

5
____%
25

____
%
5

76%-100%

51%-75%

All aims or objectives are

included and stated accurately,
such that readers are clear about
the direction of the assignment.

All aims or objectives are stated,

but some of the statements are
inaccurate.

Not all aims or objectives are

included, but those that are included
are stated accurately.

Not all aims or objectives are

included, and some of these
included are stated
inaccurately.

No work
submitted/ no
relevant
information

All required studies are critically

evaluated, and the evaluations are
accurate and relevant to the topic.
Studies are well integrated.
Authors demonstrated the ability
to make valid arguments based on
empirical evidence. There are no
errors, misunderstandings, or
gaps.

All required studies are evaluated,

but the evaluations could be
improved with regard to depth
and breath. The integration of the
studies is generally sound but
could be improved by making the
links between studies clearer.
Most arguments are sound and
backed up with empirical
evidence. There are some minor
errors, misunderstandings, or
gaps.
All arguments presented in the
main body are summarized, but
they are not clearly related back
to the aims or objectives, resulting
in some confusion about whether
or not the aims or objectives have
been achieved.

Most of the required studies are

evaluated, but evaluations require more
breath, depth, relevance, clarify and
completeness and/or accuracy.
Arguments are sometimes weak. The
logic behind the integration of studies
is less sound. There are number of
misunderstandings, errors or gaps
evident.

Most of the required studies

are summarized; there are no
much relevant evaluations.
Studies are poorly integrated.
Arguments are consistently
weak. There are substantial
errors or misunderstandings.

No work
submitted/ no
relevant
information

Not all arguments presented in the

main body are summarized. The
authors made attempts to relate the
arguments back to the aims or
objectives, but it is mostly unclear
whether or not the aims or objectives
have been achieved.

Not all arguments presented

in the main body are
summarized. No attempt to
relate arguments back to the
aims or objectives.

No work
submitted/ no
relevant
information

All arguments presented in the

main body are summarized and
clearly related back to the aims
or objectives presented in the
introduction.

21%-50%

0%-20%

Page 3 of 5

4. Literacy &
written
communication
[8 marks]

5. Presentation
& HARVARD
style
referencing
[5 marks]

Total:

____%
7

____%
8

There is a clear organisation to

the assignment, and transitions
are smooth and effective. Tone is
appropriately formal/academic.
Paragraphs are effectively
structured and integrated around
a central idea. Punctuation,
spelling and grammar are almost
completely correct, including
proper tenses and voice.
Sentences are concise and word
choice is precise, with nonbiased
language. Proper paraphrases are
usually used, but quotation marks
are used appropriately as
necessary.

Writing is appropriately
formal/academic in tone,
language is unbiased, and
sentences are generally concise.
Transitions are generally there but
are occasionally not smooth.
Paragraphs may occasionally
stray from the central idea or lack
integration. There may be minor
errors of vocabulary, grammar,
punctuation, or spelling.
Paraphrases are usually used, and
quotation marks are used
appropriately as necessary. The
literacy and writing errors in the
assignment do not affect
readability.

Organisation is less adequate.

Transitions are sometimes there, and
those that are there could be improved.
Tone is occasionally colloquial, and
bias in language may be apparent.
Punctuation, grammar and spelling are
usually correct, but there may be
consistent minor mistakes. Significant
presence of confusing or redundant
sentences or paragraphs. Word choice
is sometimes vague. The author
includes many quotes or improper
paraphrases that may constitute
unintentional plagiarism. The literacy
and writing errors make the assignment
difficult to follow on occasion.

The assignment say is

presented/organised as required.
Referencing and presentation
conforms to current edition of
HARVARD style. The title page,
in-text citations and reference
page are in HARVARD style with
no mistakes.

There are occasional and mostly

minor errors of HARVARD style
referencing (in text and reference
list) and presentation.

Referencing (in text and reference list)

and presentation is recognisable as the
current edition of HARVARD style but
there are errors and inconsistencies.

Organisation is confusing.
Transitions are missing or are
very weak. Tone is
consistently too informal.
There are punctuation,
grammar or spelling mistakes
throughout the assignment.
Most sentences and
paragraphs are confusing or
redundant. Word choice is
vague. The authors string
together quotations without
enough original input. The
literacy and writing errors are
such that it is difficult to
know what the writers are
trying to express.
Referencing (in text and
reference list) and
presentation consistently
incorrect and/or nonHARVARD style applied.

No work
submitted/ no
relevant
information

No work
submitted/ no
relevant
information

/50

Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5