An empirical investigation of the auditor's decision to project errors

Auditing

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 85-87

  Elder, Randal J ^a   Allen, Robert D ^b  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit sampling; Error containment; Error projection; SAS No. 39

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038887652     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abdel-khalik, A. R., and B. B. Ajinkya. 1979. Empirical Research in Accounting: A Methodological Viewpoint. Accounting Education Series No. 4. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICP A). 1981. Audit Sampling. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 39. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 1983. Audit Sampling Guide. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. Arens, A., and J. Loebbecke. 1997. Auditing: An Integrated Approach. Seventh edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Ashton, A. 1991. Error frequency knowledge as potential determinants of audit expertise. The Accounting Review (April): 218-239.
6. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. 1976. Unobtrusive measures: An inventory of uses. Sociological Methods and Research: 267-300.
7. Burgstahler, D., and J. Jiambalvo. 1986. Sample error characteristics and projection of error to audit populations. The Accounting Review (April): 233-248.
8. _, S. Glover, and J. Jiambalvo. 1997. Auditor sensitivity to error projection and uncertainty in the evaluation of aggregate error. Working paper, Brigham Young University.
9. Coakley, J., and J. Loebbecke. 1985. The expectation of accounting errors in medium-sized manufacturing firms. Advances in Accounting: 199-246.
10. Cushing, B. E., and S. Ahlawat. 1996. Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: The effect of documentation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 15 (Fall): 110-122.
11. _, and J. K. Loebbecke. 1986. Comparison of Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms. Studies in Accounting Research No. 26. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
12. DeFond, M. L., and J. Jiambalvo. 1991. Incidence and circumstances of accounting errors. The Accounting Review (July): 643-655.
13. Dusenbury, R., J. Reimers, and S. Wheeler. 1994. The effect of containment information and error frequency on projection of sample errors to audit populations. The Accounting Review (January): 257-264.
14. Guy, D., D. Carmichael, and R. Whittington. 1994. Audit Sampling. Third edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15. Ham, J., D. Losell, and W. Smieliauskas. 1987. Some empirical evidence on the stability of accounting error. The Accounting Review (October): 210-226.
16. Hermanson, H. 1995. Influences on auditors' evaluation of sample evidence. Working paper, Kennesaw State College, Marietta, GA.
17. Icerman, R., and W. Hillison. 1991. Disposition of audit-detected errors: Some evidence on evaluative materiality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 22-33.
18. Jick, T, D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly: 602-611.
19. Kerlinger F. N. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Third edition. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc.
20. Kinney, W. R. 1986. Audit technology and preferences for auditing standards. Journal of Accounting and Economics 8: 73-89.
21. _, and R. Martin. 1994. Does auditing reduce bias in financial reporting? A review of audit-related adjustment studies.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 149-156.
22. Kreutzfeldt, R., and W. Wallace. 1986. Error characteristics in audit populations: Their profile and relationship to environmental factors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 20-43.
23. Prawitt, D. 1995. Staffing assignments for judgment-oriented tasks: The effects of structured audit technology and environment. The Accounting Review (July): 443-465.
24. Sullivan, J. 1992. Litigation risk broadly considered. In Proceedings of the University of Kansas Auditing Symposium XI, 49-59. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
25. Wheeler, S., R. Dusenbury, and J. L. Reimers. 1997. Projecting sample misstatements to audit populations: Theoretical, professional and empirical considerations. Decision Sciences (Spring): 261-278.