Previous research demonstrates that "brand name" (e.g., Big Eight versus non-Big Eight) is a factor affecting audit prices and auditor selection.1 As a quality surrogate, brand name reflects differences between auditor size categories in concern for reputation (DeAngelo 1981b) and the ability to withstand client pressure (Goldman and Barlev 1974). It has not, however, been demonstrated that these features characterize quality differences within an auditor size category. Although tests are difficult without a direct measure of quality, recent announcements by the General Accounting Office on CPA quality in governmental audits indicate a need to determine the factors that affect quality differences within auditor size categories, which is the subject of this study. Audit quality is defined as the probability that the auditor will both discover and report a breach in the client's accounting system (DeAngelo 1981a). Two explanations for variations in audit quality involve reputation and power conflict. Because an incumbent auditor captures client-specific quasi-rents, there is incentive to lower audit quality to retain the client. However, audit firm size is a moderating effect since a large client base allows a concern for reputation to remain more important than retention of any given client. The expectations are that (1) audit quality decreases as auditor tenure increases and (2) audit quality increases with the number of clients. In power conflicts, the client can exert pressure on the auditor to violate professional standards, and a large, financially healthy client can exert greater pressure with a threat of replacing the auditor. However, the established review of audit results or audit working papers by third parties can increase the auditor's ability to withstand client pressure. The expectations are that (3) audit quality is negatively related to the size and financial health of the firm and (4) audit quality improves when the auditor knows work will be subject to review by third parties and that sanctions for poor quality work will occur. This article presents the results of an investigation into the determinants of audit quality provided by small, independent CPA firms in Texas on audits of independent school districts. The study analyzes quality control review (QCR) findings to obtain a relatively more direct measure of audit quality. Between 1984 and 1989 the Audit Division of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) conducted 308 QCRs. Numerical scoring of 232 QCR letters of findings represents the measure of minimum audit quality and the dependent variable in the regression analysis. Explanatory variables associated with reputation effects, power conflict effects, report timeliness, audit hours, and reported breaches were obtained from TEA sources. The major finding of the study is that audit quality definitions (DeAngelo 1981b; Goldman and Barley 1974) considered descriptive among audit size categories are sufficiently robust to explain quality variations within an audit size group. The results also confirm earlier studies relating audit quality to audit report timeliness (Dwyer and Wilson 1989) and actual audit hours (Palmrose 1986, 1989). We conclude that audit hours is a suitable surrogate for audit quality when direct measures are unavailable.
