A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Auditor Risk Assessments and Sample Size Decisions

Accounting Review

Volumn 78, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 983-1002

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

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

Control risk; Inherent risk; Risk assessments; Samples sizes

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242427764     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2003.78.4.983     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1981. Audit Sampling. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 39. New York, NY: AICPA
2. _. 1983a. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 1983b. Audit Sampling. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. _. 1988. Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 55. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. _. 1997. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82. New York, NY: AICPA.
6. _. 1999. Audit Sampling. New York, NY: AICPA.
7. _. 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
8. Bamber, L., O. Barron, and T. Stober. 1997. Trading volume and different aspects of disagreement coincident with earnings announcements. The Accounting Review 72 (4): 575- 597.
9. Bedard, J. 1989. An archival investigation of audit program planning. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 9 (1): 57-71.
10. _, and K. Johnstone. 2002. Auditors' assessments and responses to earnings management risk and corporate governance risk. Working paper, Northeastern University.
11. Bell, T., F. Marrs, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas. 1997. Auditing Organizations Through a Strategic Systems Lens: The KPMG Business Measurement Process. Montvale, NJ: KPMG Peat Marwick.
12. _, W. Landsman, and D. Shackelford. 2001. Auditors' perceived business risk and audit fees: Analysis and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 39 (1): 35-44.
13. Bhattacharya, N. 2001. Investors' trade size and trading responses around earnings announcements: An empirical investigation. The Accounting Review 76 (2): 221-244.
14. Dusenbury, R., J. Reimers, and S. Wheeler. 1996. An empirical study of belief-based and probability-based specifications of audit risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 15 (2): 12-28.
15. Elder, R., and R. Allen. 1998. An empirical investigation of the auditor's decision to project errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 17 (2): 71-87.
16. Froot, K. 1989. Consistent covariance matrix estimation with cross-sectional dependence and hetero-skedasticity in financial data. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 14 (September): 333-355.
17. Hackenbrack, K., and W. Knechel, 1997. Resource allocation decisions in audit engagements. Contemporary Accounting Research 14 (Fall): 481-499.
18. Houghton, C., and J. Fogarty. 1991. Inherent risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (1): 1-21.
19. Houston, R. 1999. The effects of fee pressure and client risk on audit seniors' time budget decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (2): 70-86.
20. _, M. Peters, and J. Pratt. 1999. The audit risk model, business risk and audit-planning decisions. The Accounting Review 74 (3): 281-298.
21. Johnstone, K., and J. Bedard. 2001. Engagement planning, bid pricing, and client response in the market for initial attest engagements. The Accounting Review 76 (2): 199-220.
22. Kachelmeier, S., and W. Messier, Jr. 1990. An investigation of the influence of a nonstatistical decision aid on auditor sample size decisions. The Accounting Review 65 (1): 209-226.
23. Messier, W., S. Kachelmeier, and K. Jensen. 2001. An experimental assessment of recent professional developments in nonstatistical audit sampling guidance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (1): 81-96.
24. Mock, T., and A. Wright. 1993. An exploratory study of auditors' evidential planning judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (2): 39-61.
25. _, and _. 1999. Are audit program plans risk-adjusted? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (1): 55-74.
26. O'Keefe, T., D. Simunic, and M. Stein. 1994. The production of audit services: Evidence from a major public accounting firm. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Autumn): 241-261.
27. Panel on Audit Effectiveness (PAE). 2000. The Panel on Audit Effectiveness: Report and Recommendations. Stamford, CT: Public Oversight Board.
28. Reimers, J., S. Wheeler, and R. Dusenbury. 1993. The effect of response mode on auditors' control risk assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (2): 62-78.
29. Shelton, S., O. Whittington, and D. Landsittel. 2001. Auditing firms' fraud risk assessment practices. Accounting Horizons 15 (1): 19-34.
30. Stone, D., and W. Dilla. 1994. When numbers are better than words: The joint effects of response representation and experience on inherent risk judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (2): 1-19.
31. Waller, W. 1993. Auditors' assessments of inherent and control risk in field settings. The Accounting Review 68 (4): 783-803.
32. Wright, A., and J. Bedard. 2000. Decision processes in audit evidential planning: A multistage investigation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (1): 123-143.