Auditors' evaluation of evidence obtained through management inquiry: A cascaded-inference approach

Auditing

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 87-104

  Haynes, Christine M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Audit judgment; Cascaded inference; Management inquiry; Management reliability

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009620055     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.1999.18.2.87     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1978. Planning and Supervision. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 22. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. _. 1988a. The Auditor's Responsibility to Detect and Report Errors and Irregularities. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 53. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 1988b. Analytical Procedures. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 56. New York: AICPA.
4. _. 1997. Amendment to Statement on Auditing Standards No. 31: Evidential Matter. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 80. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Anderson, U., L. Koonce, and G. Marchant. 1994. The effects of source-competence information and its timing on auditors' performance of analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (Spring): 137-148.
6. Bamber, E. M. 1980. Expert judgment in the audit team: An examination of source credibility. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.
7. _. 1983. Expert judgment in the audit team: A source reliability approach. Journal of Accounting Research 21 (Autumn): 396-412.
8. Bédard, J. 1990. Source reliability and audit evidence evaluation: A decision under ambiguity analysis. Working paper, Université Laval.
9. Berry, L. E., and W. A. Wallace. 1986. Governmental auditing research: An analytic framework, assessment of past work, and future directions. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting 2: 89-115.
10. _, G. B. Harwood, and J. L. Katz. 1987. Performance of auditing procedures by governmental auditors: Some preliminary evidence. The Accounting Review 62 (January): 14-28.
11. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1997. CICA Handbook. Toronto, Ontario: CICA.
12. _. 1999. Enquiry as a form of evidence. Standards Projects Status Report, 〈http://www.cica.ca/ cica/cicawebsite.nsf/Public/sgrsaetor〉
13. Einhorn, H. J., and R. M. Hogarth. 1981. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology 32: 53-88.
14. Gettys, C. F., C. W. Kelly, and C. Peterson. 1973. The best guess hypothesis in multistage inference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10 (December): 364-373.
15. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994. Government Auditing Standards. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. Hirst, D. E. 1994a. Auditors' sensitivity to source reliability. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Spring): 113-126.
17. _. 1994b. Auditor sensitivity to earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Fall): 405-422.
18. Joyce, E. J., and G. C. Biddle. 1981. Are auditors' judgments sufficiently regressive? Journal of Accounting Research 19 (Autumn): 323-349.
19. Knechel, W. R., and W. F. Messier, Jr. 1990. Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation. Contemporary Accounting Research 6 (Spring I): 386-406.
20. Leslie, D. A., S. J. Aldersley, D. J. Cockburn, and C. J. Reiter. 1986. An assertion based approach to auditing. In Auditing Symposium VIII: Proceedings of the 1986 Touche Ross/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems, edited by R. P. Srivastava, and N. A. Ford, 31-58. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
21. McMillan, J. J., and R. A. White. 1993. Auditors' belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation bias, and professional skepticism. The Accounting Review 68 (July): 443-465.
22. Mock, T. J., A. Wright, M. Washington, and G. Krishnamoorthy. 1997. Auditors' uncertainty representation and evidence aggregation. Behavioral Research in Accounting 9 (Supplement): 123-147.
23. Peecher, M. E. 1996. The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (Spring): 125-140.
24. Raman, K. K., and E. R. Wilson. 1994. Governmental audit procurement practices and seasoned bond prices. The Accounting Review 69 (October): 517-538.
25. Rebele, J. E., J. A. Heintz, and G. E. Briden. 1988. Independent auditor sensitivity to evidence reliability. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 8 (Fall): 43-52.
26. Schum, D. A., and W. M. DuCharme. 1971. Comments on the relationship between the impact and the reliability of evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6 (March): 111-131.
27. _, _, and K. E. DePitts. 1973. Research on human multistage probabilistic inference processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10 (December): 318-348.
28. _. 1987. Evidence and Inference for the Intelligence Analyst: Volume I. New York, NY: United Press of America, Inc.
29. _. 1989. Knowledge, probability, and credibility. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2: 39-62.
30. _. 1994. Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. New York, NY: Wiley.
31. Smith, J. F., and T. Kida. 1991. Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin 109 (May): 472-489.
32. Snapper, K. J., and D. G. Fryback. 1971. Inferences based on unreliable reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 87 (March): 401-404.
33. Washington, M. T. 1989. Incorporating internal control system reliability in audit evidence evaluation using cascaded inference theory. Working paper, University of Southern California.
34. Youssef, Z. I. 1973. The effects of cascaded inference on the subjective value of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10 (December): 359-363.
35. _, and C. R. Peterson. 1973. Intuitive cascaded inference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10 (December): 349-358.