Team Deliberation and Audit Quality: The Mediating Role of Audit Brainstorming in the Competence–Judgment–Skepticism–Performance Nexus

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines whether audit brainstorming mediates the relationships between auditor competence, professional judgment, professional skepticism, and auditor performance. Drawing on human capital theory and team information-processing perspectives, the study argues that individual auditor attributes influence engagement outcomes through structured collaborative mechanisms embedded in fraud brainstorming sessions. Methodology: Using survey data from 285 audit managers across licensed audit firms in Ghana, the study tests a mediation model using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Auditor performance is operationalized through audit evidence quality and audit reporting quality, aligning closely with the auditor’s core objective under international auditing standards. Findings: The results indicate that audit brainstorming fully mediates the relationship between competence and auditor performance, and partially mediates the relationships between professional judgment, professional skepticism, and performance. These findings suggest that technical expertise enhances performance primarily when integrated into team-based deliberations, while judgment and skepticism exert both direct and process-mediated effects. Unique Contribution to Theory, Policy and Practice: The study contributes to the audit literature by introducing brainstorming as a process-level mechanism linking auditor attributes to performance and by providing evidence from a developing economy. The results have implications for audit firms and regulators seeking to strengthen fraud risk assessment and engagement quality.