2026-09-23T21:27:32Z https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh

oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/87160 2023-07-11 col_2142_5131 col_2142_16440 com_2142_5130 com_2142_16439 com_2142_9216

Peecher, Mark E. Piercey, Melvin David 2015-09-28T15:39:23Z 2015-09-28T15:39:23Z 10000-01-01 2006 2006 As a whole, this dissertation presents new evidence of the linguistic strategies that auditors use to reach a preferred audit conclusion in the work papers. My findings demonstrate linguistic assessments as more biased and yet justifiable than numerical assessments. Finally, they suggest unintended effects of documentation requirements when audit risks are assessed linguistically rather than numerically. Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-28T15:39:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3242960.pdf: 2416427 bytes, checksum: 53154c180a146f6ecfa580f44f34202b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006 Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 88441 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs U of I Only 94 p. Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/87160 (MiAaPQ)AAI3242960 eng Psychology, Behavioral Somewhat Possible or Substantial Doubt? Documentation Requirements, Persuasion Tactics, and Linguistic (Vs. Numerical) Audit Risk Assessments text Accountancy Accountancy University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dissertation Ph.D.