An empirical examination of peer review in the accountancy profession

This dissertation examines the research question of whether the peer review program of the AICPA SEC Practice Section (SECPS) is functioning as designed. This examination covers a period from 1992 to 1994 and includes the analysis of 703 peer review reports submitted to the SECPS. This dissertation argues that evidence from the peer review process provides partial support for the proposition that the peer review program is functioning as designed by the SECPS.; Several hypotheses are developed to address the research question. These hypotheses follow from a proposed theory of self-regulatory effectiveness. This proposed theory states that since this peer review program has been accepted as a self-regulatory mechanism, the peer review program should function according to the design described by the SECPS.; Hypotheses relating to reviewer findings, reviewer recommendations, and reviewee responses to reviewer recommendations were tested using logistic regression analysis. The testing of the hypotheses yielded evidence supporting proper functioning of the peer review program. Problems noted by peer reviewers tend to differ between findings leading to a qualified peer review report and findings classified as non-qualifying findings. Also, the recall of reports by reviewees is positively correlated with findings leading to report qualification. Remedial actions prescribed by reviewers differ in severity between recommendations pertaining to qualifying and non-qualifying findings. Further, neither reviewer nor reviewee characteristics were found to influence the degree of reviewee agreement with reviewer recommendations. However, the testing also provided some evidence of dysfunction. Reviewers do not appear to consider recurring findings inherently more serious than non-recurring findings. Also, reviewees do not appear more likely to agree with reviewer recommendations when replying to qualifying findings.; Additional hypotheses designed to replicate and extend the prior research of Wallace (1991) were also tested. The results of this testing generally supported the proposition of proper functioning. However, the testing did yield some evidence of dysfunction. The proportion of unqualified peer review reports did not increase over the sample period. Also, unfavorable reporting outcomes appear to be correlated with longer delays in filing peer review reports.