This study investigates the relationship between the audit objective and the choice of substantive procedures used to ensure the satisfaction of the auditor. The research that gave support to the current study is exploratory and adopted a non-probabilistic sample comprising 28 auditors of an Undergraduate and Master’s degree programs in Accounting of a Brazilian University. Thus, to preserve the maturity and skill expected of the respondents of the research we restricted a minimum of one year of auditing experience for the auditor that might have served in one of the Big Four Auditing firm. Methodology wise, we applied a qualitative ordinal approach and the research question is as follows: What are the characteristics of Analytical Review Procedures that guide auditors’ judgment while choosing among a mix of procedures to meet the requirements of the substantive tests? Our analysis was based on absolute frequency analysis of the use of the substantive procedures. In this respect, our results revealed that auditor’s satisfaction is anchored on the materiality of the accounts or group of accounts to be audited. Yet they give a relative importance to judgment of risk and relevance of misstatement that each account presents. In so doing, auditors give preference to substantive procedures in which one is able to gather information from third parties to confirm accounting balances while giving less priority to recalculation of routine tests developed by the audited entities.
