Procedural fairness in the peer and quality review programs

The adoption of mandatory practice-monitoring represents an AICPA policy decision that was unpopular with some of its members. The use of fair decision-making procedures may be one way to mitigate the adverse effects of such decisions. This study examined whether the fairness of decision-making procedures relating to practice-monitoring affects reviewees' commitment to the AICPA or their trust in reviewers. Correlation techniques (LISREL) were applied to questionnaire data from 560 firms subject to either a peer or quality review. Procedural fairness was associated with both commitment to the AICPA and trust in the reviewer, which suggests that members' sentiments would improve ii the AICPA and reviewers adopt a fairer process of decision making. This might be accomplished by adopting procedures that give those most affected by the decisions greater opportunity to express their opinions and concerns to decision makers.