The effectiveness of expectation models in recognizing error patterns and generating and eliminating hypotheses while conducting analytical procedures

Auditing

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 147-170

  Leitch, Robert A ^a   Chen, Yining ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytical procedures; Expectation models; Hypothesis generation; Pattern recognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142581447     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.2.147     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allen, R. D. 1993. Analytical procedures using financial and nonfinancial information: A comparison of alternative methods. Unpublished monograph, University of Utah.
2. _, M. S. Beasley, and B. C. Branson. 1999. Improving analytical procedures: A case of using disaggregate multilocation data. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (Fall): 128-142.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Analytical Procedures. 1988. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 56. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. Anderson, U., and L. Koonce. 1995. Explanation as a method for evaluating client-suggested causes in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 14 (Fall): 124-132.
5. _, and _. 1998. Evaluating the sufficiency of causes in audit analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 17 (Spring): 1-12.
6. Asare, S., and A. Wright. 1997. Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (November): 737-755.
7. Beck, P. J., and I. Solomon. 1985. Sampling risks and audit consequences under alternative testing approaches. The Accounting Review 60: 714-723.
8. Bedard, J. C., and S. F. Biggs. 1991. Pattern recognition, hypotheses generation, and auditor performance in an analytical task. The Accounting Review 66 (July): 622-642.
9. Bell, T. B., F. O. Marrs, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas. 1997. Auditing Organizations Through A Strategic-Systems Lens. New York, NY: KPMG Peat Marwick LLP.
10. Bhattacharjee, S., T. Kida, and D. M. Hanno. 1999. The impact of hypothesis set size on the time efficiency and accuracy of analytical review judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 37: 83-100.
11. Bierstaker, J. L., J. C. Bedard, and S. F. Biggs. 1999. The role of problem representation shifts in auditor decision processes and analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (Spring): 18-36.
12. Biggs, S. F., T. J. Mock, and P. R. Watkins. 1988. Auditor's use of analytical review in audit program design. The Accounting Review 63: 148-161.
13. Blocher, E., and J. Cooper. 1988. A study of auditors' analytical review performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 1-28.
14. Chen, Y., and R. A. Leitch. 1998. The error detection of structural analytical procedures: A simulation study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 17 (2): 36-70.
15. _, and _. 1999. An analysis of the relative power characteristics of analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (2): 35-69.
16. Coakley, J. R., and J. K. Loebbecke. 1985. The expectation of accounting errors in medium-sized manufacturing firms. Advances in Accounting 2: 199-245.
17. Cogger, K. O. 1981. A time-series analytic approach to aggregation issues in accounting data. Journal of Accounting Research 19 (Autumn): 285-298.
18. Davidson, R., and J. G. Mackinnon. 1993 Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19. Duke, G. L., J. Neter, and R. A. Leitch. 1982. Power characteristics of test statistics in the auditing environment: An empirical study. Journal of Accounting Research 20:42-67.
20. _, R. A. Leitch, and J. Neter. 1985. Behavioral of Test Statistics in the Auditing Environment: An Empirical Study. Studies in Accounting Research #23. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
21. Dzeng, S. C. 1994. A comparison of analytical procedure expectation models using both aggregate and disaggregate data. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (Fall): 1-24.
22. Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric Analysis. Fifth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23. Heiman, V. B. 1990. Auditors' assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in analytical review. The Accounting Review 65: 875-890.
24. Hirst, E., and L. Koonce. 1996. Audit analytical procedures: A field investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (Fall): 457-486.
25. Hylas, R. E., and R. H. Ashton. 1982. Audit detection of financial statements errors. The Accounting Review 57: 751-765.
26. Icerman, R. C., K. S. Lorek, S. W. Wheeler, and D. Fordham. 1993. An investigation of the feasibility of using statistical-based models as analytical procedures. Unpublished monograph, Florida State University.
27. Johnson, J. R., R. A. Leitch. and J. Neter. 1981. Characteristics of error in accounts receivable and inventory audits. The Accounting Review 56: 270-293.
28. Johnson, R. A, and D. W. Wiehern 1988. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. Kaplan, R. S. 1978. Developing a financial planning model for an analytical review: A feasibility study. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Auditing Research III. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
30. Kinney, W. R., Jr. 1979. The predictive power of limited information in preliminary analytical review: An empirical study. Journal of Accounting Research 17 (Supplement): 148-171.
31. _. 1987. Attention-directing analytical review using accounting ratios: A case study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 6: 59-73.
32. Knechel, W. R. 1986. A simulation study of the relative effectiveness of alternative analytical review procedures. Decision Sciences (Summer): 376-394.
33. _. 1988. The effectiveness of statistical analytical review as a substantive auditing procedure: A simulation analysis. The Accounting Review 63 (January): 74-95.
34. Koonce, L. 1993 A cognitive characterization of audit analytical review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (Supplement): 57-76.
35. Kreutzfeldt, R., and W. Wallace. 1986. Error characteristics in audit populations: Their profile and relationship to environmental factors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 6: 20-43.
36. Lev, B. 1980. On the use of index models in analytical review by auditors. Journal of Accounting Research 18 (Autumn): 524-549.
37. Libby, R. 1985. Availability and the generation of hypotheses in analytical review. Journal of Accounting Research 23: 648-667.
38. _, and D. M. Frederick. 1990. Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of Accounting Research 28: 348-367.
39. Loebbecke, J. K., and P. J. Steinbart. 1987. An investigation of the use of preliminary analytical review to provide substantive audit evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 74-89.
40. Lorek, K. S., B. C. Branson, and R. C. Icerman. 1992. On the use of time-series models as analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11: 66-87.
41. Marchant, G. 1989. Analogical reasoning and hypothesis generation in auditing. The Accounting Review 64: 500-513.
42. Mardia, K. V. 1970. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistics Psychology 28: 205-214.
43. McCarthy, W. E. 1982. The REA accounting model: A generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. The Accounting Review 67 (July): 554-578.
44. Mueller, J. M., and J. C. Anderson. 2002. Decision aids for generating analytical review alternatives: The impact of goal framing and audit-risk level. Behavioral Research in Accounting 14: 157-177.
45. Neter, J. 1980. Two case studies on use of regression for analytical review. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Auditing Research III. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
46. _, M., H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, and W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Fourth edition. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
47. Prosansky, C., and I. P. Levin. 1999. Inclusion and exclusion in prescreening options for appositive and negative decision task. Working paper, The University of Iowa.
48. Ramage, J. O., A. M. Krieger, and L. L. Spero. 1979. An empirical study of error characteristics in audit populations. Journal of Accounting Research 17: 72-102.
49. Smieliauskas, W 1990. A reevaluation of the positive testing approach in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 9 (Supplement): 149-166.
50. TSP User's Guide Version 4.2. 1992. Palo Alto, CA: TSP International.
51. Warren, C., and R. Elliott. 1986. Materiality and audit risk: A descriptive study. Working paper, University of Georgia.
52. Wheeler, S., and K. Pany. 1990. Assessing the performance of analytical procedures: A best case scenario. The Accounting Review 65 (3): 557-577.
53. Wild, J. J. 1987. The prediction performance of a structural model of accounting numbers. Journal of Accounting Research 25 (1): 139-60.
54. Wilson, A. C., and J. Colbert. 1989. An analysis of simple and rigorous decision methods as analytical procedure. Accounting Horizons (December): 79-83.
55. Wright, A., and R. H. Ashton. 1989. Identifying audit adjustments with attention-directing procedures. The Accounting Review 64: 710-728.
56. Yaniv, I., and Y. Schul. 1997. Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10: 211-220.