The relationship between materiality thresholds and judgments of fraud risk

Managerial Finance

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 1996, Pages 1-15

  Bernardi, Richard A ^a   Pincus, Karen V ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002164001     PISSN: 03074358     EISSN: 17587743     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb018578     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Accountants International Study Group (1974). Materiality in Accounting: Current Practices in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Auditing Standards Board. (1984) . Audit risk and materiality in conducting an audit. Statement of Auditing Standards No. 47, New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Auditing Standards Board. (1988) . The auditor’s responsibility to detect and report errors and irregularities. Statement of Auditing Standards No. 53. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
4. Bernardi, R. A. (1995) . Fraud detection: The effect of client integrity and competence and auditor cognitive style. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Supplement.
5. Bernardi, R. A., and D. Arnold. (1994) . The influence of Client Integrity and Competence and Auditor Characteristics on Materiality Estimates, The Irish Accounting Review (1), 1-23.
6. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, Materiality in Auditing, 1965.
7. Carmichael, D. R. (1969) . Cumulative Aspects of Materiality. The Journal of Accountancy (December): 61-64.
8. Cook, R. (1990) . It takes two to do the audit tango. Accountancy, (October): 23-24.
9. Elliott, R. K. (1983) . Unique Audit Methods: Peat Marwick International. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Spring): 1-12.
10. Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1975) . Discussion Memorandum: An Analysis of Issues Related to Criteria for Determining Materiality. Stamford, CT, USA: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
11. Holstrum, G. L. and W. F. Messier, Jr. (1982) . A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on Materiality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Fall): 45-63.
12. International Auditing Standard No. 11: Fraud and Error. New York: International Federation of Accountants: International Audit Practice Committee. October 1982.
13. International Auditing Standard No. 25: Materiality and Audit Risk. New York: International Federation of Accountants: International Audit Practice Committee. October 1987.
14. Jennings, M., D. C. Kneer and P. M. J. Reckers (1987). A Reexamination of the Concept of Materiality: Views of Auditors, Users, and Officers of the Court. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Spring): 104-115.
15. Leslie, D. A. (1985) . Materiality. Toronto: The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
16. Mitchell, A. (1992) . The future for audit regulation. Paper presented at the Audit Conference, University of Central England, Birmingham, UK.
17. Pany, K., and S. Wheeler. (1989) . Materiality: An inter-industry comparison of the magnitudes and stabilities of various quantitative measures. Accounting Horizons, (December):71-78.
18. Pincus, K. V. (1990) . Auditor individual differences and fairness of presentation judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 150-166.
19. Public Oversight Board. (1993) . In the Public Interest: A Special Report by the Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, AICPA. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
20. SAS Institute. (1985) . The GLM Procedure. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. 5th ed., Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
21. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 849 (C.A. 2d, 1968).
22. Warren, C. S. and R. K. Elliott. (1986) . Materiality and audit risk, a descriptive study. Unpublished working paper.