Comment and Response to “Do Client Characteristics Really Drive the Big N Audit Quality Effect? New Evidence from Propensity Score Matching” by Mark DeFond, David H. Erkens, and Jieying Zhang

References

• Ali M, Groenwold R, Belitsera S, Pestmanc W, Hoesb A, Roesb K, Boera A, Klungel O (2015) Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: A systematic review. J. Clinical Epidemiology 68(2):122–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeFond M, Erkens DH, Zhang Z (2017) Do client characteristics really drive the Big N audit quality effect? New evidence from propensity score matching. Management Sci. 63(11):3628–3649.Link, Google Scholar
• Eilifsen A, Messier WF Jr (2015) Materiality guidance of the major public accounting firms. Auditing: J. Practice Theory 34(2):3–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence A, Minutti-Meza M, Zhang P (2011) Can Big 4 versus non-Big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? Accounting Rev. 86(1):259–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan S, Winship C (2015) Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research, Analytical Methods for Social Research, 2nd. ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role in the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55.Crossref, Google Scholar