20

20.91). This is consistent with results found by Amer, Hackenbrack, and Nelson(1994).

To determine whether familiarıty with IAS influences interpretation of uncertainty expressions used ın IAS, respondents in each of the WP/German and WP/English groups were split into two groups(high= very familiar or familiar, and ja somewhat familiar or not familiar).” No significant differences were found between the high and low groups for the WP/German respondents. However, the high IAS familiarıty group for the WP/English respondents assigned significantly higher mean probabilities than the low familiarıty group on

2 CC

three uncertainty expressions:“not probable,”“no longer probable,” and“remote.”

The WP/English respondents were also split into two groups based on their level of English comprehension(high= excellent or good, low= satisfactory or rudimentary). No significant differences were found between these two groups in mean probabilities assigned to the 16 English expressions to which they responded. Level of English comprehension did not affect their responses to the uncertainty expressions in English. Similarly, there were no significant differences in mean responses between those WP/English respondents with audit experience in English-speaking countries and those without.

Tests of Hypotheses

The ANOVA results in Table 3 indicate significant differences across the three groups for

14 of the 21 uncertainty expression comparisons(Column 6). To test Hypothesis 1(overall

effect), the mean point-estimates for the CPA and WP/German groups were compared.

Bonferroni post-hoc comparison tests indicate significant differences for 8 of 21 compariısons