臺大管理論叢 NTU Management Review VOL.30 NO.2

35 NTU Management Review Vol. 30 No. 2 Aug. 2020 Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2009. Docket 029: Improving Transparency through Disclosure of Engagement Partner and Certain Other Participants in Audits . Washington, DC. . 2015. Improving the Transparency of Audits: Rules to Require Disclosure of Certain Audit Participants on a New PCAOB Form and Related Amendments to Auditing Standards . Washington, DC. Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., Gómez-Aguilar, N., and Carrera, N. 2009. Does mandatory audit firm rotation enhance auditor independence? Evidence from Spain. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory , 28 (1): 113-135. doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/ aud.2009.28.1.113 Sundgren, S., and Svanström, T. 2014. Auditor-in-charge characteristics and going- concern reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research , 31 (2): 531-550. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12035 Tan, H. T. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research , 33 (1): 113-135. doi: 10.2307/2491295 Teoh, S. H., and Wong, T. J. 1993. Perceived auditor quality and the earnings response coefficient. The Accounting Review , 68 (2): 346-366. doi: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/248405 Tucker, R. R., and Matsumura, E. M. 1997. Second-partner review: An experimental economics investigation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory , 16 (1): 79-98. Warfield, T. D., Wild, J. J., and Wild, K. L. 1995. Managerial ownership, accounting choices, and informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics , 20 (1): 61-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(94)00393-J Zerni, M. 2012. Audit partner specialization and audit fees: Some evidence from Sweden. Contemporary Accounting Research , 29 (1): 312-340. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01098.x Zerni, M., Haapamäki, E., Järvinen, T., and Niemi, L. 2012. Do joint audits improve audit quality? Evidence from voluntary joint audits. European Accounting Review, 21 (4): 731-765. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.678599