The readability of international illustration of auditor's report: An advanced reflection on the compromise between normative principles and linguistic requirements
Keywords:Auditing, International auditors’ reports, ISA 700, Content of audits, Understandability, Readability and determinants of legibility
The independent auditors periodically publish reports that summarize the audit results. These reports reinforce the financial communication and reliability of accounting information. International Standards on Auditing (ISA) determine the content of audit reports and the quality of audit results. Theoretically,the audit standardization must model intelligible and clear reports for readers. Compliance with linguistic principles contributes to the improvement of the structure of audit reports. In practice, the effectiveness of these reports is criticized because users do not understand the audit information. In order to improve the content of audit reports, International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) had revised International Standards on Auditor’s report: ISA 700: Forming an opinion and reporting on financial statements. Linguistically, standardized audit reports could be unreadable by many users of financial statements. This article discusses the linguistic problems related to the preparation of reports. This discussion focuses on the audit reports which are illustrated by the International Standards on Auditing. The results show that in the presence of conflicting requirements (auditing standards versus linguistic principles), independent auditors must optimize the presentation of their reports.
Archer, S., Mcleay, S., & Dufour, J. (1989). Audit report on financial statements of European multinational companies: A comparative study. London. England: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Barnett, A., & Leoffler, K. (1979). Readability of accounting and auditing messages.
Journal of Business Communication, 16, 49–59.
DuBay, H. (2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA. Retrieved from http://www.impactinformation.com/impactinfo/readability02.pdf
Fakhfakh, H., & Fakhfakh, M. (2010). The impact of revised ISA 700: An international empirical comparison. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 6, 274–326.
Fakhfakh, M. (2013). The readability of standardised reports by the International Federation of Accountants. Journal of Commerce and Accounting Research, 2,10–28.
Fakhfakh, M. (2014). Structural features and understandability of the international auditors’ reports: Linguistic evidence from the International Standard on Auditing 700. Working Paper, University of Sfax.
Fakhfakh, M. (2015). Linguistic performance and legibility of auditors’ reports with modifiedopinions:Anadvancedinvestigationbasedonthe ISAs onaudit reports. Asian Review of Accounting, (forthcoming).
Flesh,R.(1948).Anew readibility yardstick. Journal ofAplied Psychology, 32, 221–233.
Gangolly, J. S., Hussein, M. E., Seow, G. S., & Tam, K. (2002). Harmonisation of the auditor’s report. The International Journal of Accounting, 37, 327–346.
Gonthier, N. (1996). Contribution à l’analyse de l’information transmise par les rapports d’audit. Thèse de doctorat de sciences de gestion. Université de Paris IX Dauphine.
Gray, W., & Leary, B. W. (1935). What makes a book readable. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGrawHill.
Hargis, G., Hernández, A. K., Hughes, P., Ramaker, J., Rouiller, S., & Wilde, E. (1998). Developing quality technical information: A handbook for writers and editors. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hatherly, D., Innes, J., & Brown, T. (1997). The expanded audit report: A research study with the development of SAS 600. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, 10, 702–717.
Hay, D. (1998). Communication in auditors’ reports: Variations in readability and the effect of audit firm structure. Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting, 5, 179–197.
Holt, G., & Moizer, P. (1990). The meaning of audit reports. Accounting and Business Research, 20, 111–121.
Hussein, M. E., Bavishi, V., & Gangolly, J. S. (1986). International similarities and differences in the auditor’s report. Auditing: A journal of Practice and Theory, 6, 124–133.
King, C. R. (1999). The measurement of harmonization in the form and content of auditor’ s report in the European Union. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 8, 23–42.
Klare, G. R.(1963). The measurement of readability. Ames. Iowa:Iowa State University Press.
Lively, B. A., & Pressey, S. L. (1923). A method for measuring the vocabulary burden of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision.
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading - A new readability formula. Journal of reading, 22, 639–646.
Washburne, C. W., & Vogel, M. (1926). Winnetka graded book list. Chicago: American Library Association.
Zeghal, D., Maingot, M. & Tassé, M. (1999). An examination of the length and organisation of the auditor’s report- An international comparison. Working paper,University of Ottawa
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2015 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.