In response to PCAOB concerns regarding auditors’ levels of professional skepticism, certain international auditing firms utilize the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale (“HPSS”; Hurtt 2010) to help auditors improve their professional skepticism. This practice involves providing feedback on their trait (i.e., inherent or natural) skepticism levels as measured by the HPSS, along with instructions to increase their skepticism if they are low in trait skepticism. To test the efficacy of the firms’ training approach, we conducted an experiment in which two hundred and forty auditing students responded to the HPSS and, one week later, examined two simulated accounts receivable confirmation exceptions, one of which results from a client misstatement. We varied whether participants receive HPSS score feedback and/or instructions to increase their skepticism. Based on participants’ information search patterns, we develop a measure of skeptical action. We also measure the accuracy of participants’ skeptical judgments related to the two confirmations. We find that the audit firms' practice of providing score feedback and instructions leads participants to improve their skeptical actions and judgments. However, the HPSS itself is not predictive of skeptical behavior in our setting, suggesting that the feedback may not be accurate. Together these findings imply that the firms’ practice may be useful, but a more predictive skepticism measure may be needed.