1Agoglia,C. P.,R. C. Hatfield,and J. F. Brazel. The effects of audit review format on review team judg- ments. Working Paper,Drexel University.2006.
2Asare, S. K., and L. McDaniel. The effect of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effective- ness of the audit review process [J].The Accounting Review, 1996, 71(4) : 139-159.
3Bamber,E. M.,and J. H. Bylinski. The effects of the planning memorandum,time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers'review time judgments [J ].Contemporary Accounting Research, 1987,3(Fall) :501-513.
4Brazel,J. F., C. P. Agoglia,and R. C. Hatfield. Elec- tronic versus face-to-face review:the effects of alter- native forms of review on auditors'performance[J ].The Accounting Review, 2004,79(4) : 949-966.
5Davidson,R.,and W. Gist. Empirical evidence on the functional relation between audit planning and total audit effort [J].Joumal of Accounting Research, 1996 (Spring) : 111-124.
6Payne,E. A. An examination of audit workpaper re- view methods and other factors affecting reviewee per- formance. Working paper,Xavier University.2004.
7Sprinkle, G. B. and R. M. Tubbs. The effects of audit risk and information importance on auditor memory during working paper review[J ].The Accounting Re- view, 1998,73(4) :475-502.
8Webster,J. and L. K. Trevino. Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: two policy-capturing studies [J ].Academy of Management Journal, 1995,38(6) : 1544-1572.
