Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Date

2025

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Department

Accounting

Committee Chair

Nirmalee Raddatz

Committee Member

Hannah Antinozzi

Committee Member

Kate Sorensen

Committee Member

Kurt Kraiger

Committee Member

Philip Kunz

Abstract

Abstract In this study, I investigate the impact of training interventions on professional judgment in auditors, while considering the moderating effects of ability and implicit beliefs about skill malleability. Prior research highlights the potential of metacognitive training to enhance analytical procedures in lower-level auditors (Plumlee, Rixom, & Rosman, 2015) and the role of experiential learning methods in fostering professional development (Powell et al., 2020). The effectiveness of such training interventions in improving professional judgment, particularly when accounting for individual differences in ability and mindset, remains an open question. Using a one-factor design with nesting, this study explores whether training in analytical thinking, professional skepticism, and professional integrity influences auditors’ professional judgment. Descriptive statistics suggest that participants who receive training tend to have higher post-intervention scores, but ANCOVA results indicate that training volume alone does not significantly impact post-intervention scores considering baseline performance (pre_test). Similarly, while mindset shows a significant main effect, ability does not demonstrate a significant direct effect. A significant interaction is found between training volume and mindset, suggesting that the effectiveness of training may depend on an individual’s implicit beliefs about malleability of abilities. Additionally, a significant three-way interaction between training volume, mindset, and ability highlights the importance of considering these factors collectively when evaluating training outcomes. Hierarchical regression analysis confirms that baseline performance is a strong predictor of post -intervention outcomes, the addition of training volume and mindset improves the model, and the inclusion of ability further enhance the model’s explanatory power, suggesting that pre-existing competencies may influence training effectiveness. These findings underscore the complexity of professional judgment development and indicate that training interventions alone may not be sufficient to drive significant improvements. Instead, factors such as individual predispositions, cognitive abilities, and psychological traits may play a more substantial role. This study contributes to the auditing literature by emphasizing the need for tailored training approaches that account for individual differences. While training remains an important tool for professional development, its impact on auditors’ judgment may be maximized when integrated with a deeper understanding of how ability and mindset influence learning outcomes. Future research should explore more personalized training strategies and consider additional moderating factors to enhance training effectiveness in the auditing profession.

Comments

Data is provided by the student.

Library Comment

PDF

Notes

Open access.

Download

Share

COinS