Discussion of why do auditors over-rely on weak analytical procedures? The role of outcome and precision

Auditing

Volumn 24, Issue SUPPL., 2005, Pages 221-228

  McDaniel, Linda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645733618     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.supplement.221     Document Type: Note

References (19)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1986. Auditing Procedures Study: Auditing the Allowance for Credit Losses of Banks. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. _. 1988. Analytical Procedures. Statements on Auditing Standards No. 56. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 1998. AICPA. Analytical Procedures. Audit Guide. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. _. 2004. Audit and Accounting guide: Depository and Lending Institutions: Banks and Savings Institutions, Credit Unions, Finance Companies, and Mortgage Companies. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Ameen, E., and J. Strawser. 1994. Investigating the use of analytical procedures: An update and extension. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (fall): 69-76.
6. Asare, S., and A. Wright. 2001. Design considerations for research on analytical procedures. International Journal of Auditing (5): 205-214.
7. Bazerman, M. 2002. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. 5th edition. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
8. Glover, S., D. Prawitt, and J. Wilks. 2005. Why do auditors over-rely on weak analytical procedures? The role of outcome and precision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 197-220.
9. Hitzig, N. 2004. The hidden risk in analytical procedures: What WorldCom revealed. The CPA Journal (February): 32-34.
10. Kinney, W. Jr., L. McDaniel, and R. Martin. 2004. Sequential quantification guidance to assist auditors' subjective assessments in substantive analytical procedures. Working paper, University of Kentucky.
11. Libby, R., R. Bloomfield, and M. Nelson. 2002. Experimental research in financial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society (December): 775-810.
12. Lin, K., I. Fraser, and D. Hatherly. 2000. An experimental study of auditor analytical review judgments. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (September/October): 821-857.
13. McDaniel, L., and W. Kinney, Jr. 1995. Expectation-formation guidance in the auditor's review of interim financial information. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 59-76.
14. McDaniel, L., and L. Simmons. 2005. Auditors' assessment and incorporation of expectation precision in evidential analytical procedures. Working paper, University of Kentucky.
15. Messier, W. Jr., S. Glover, and D. Prawitt. 2006. Auditing & Assurance Services: A Systematic Approach. 4th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
16. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2004. Educational Overview of the Workings of the PCAOB. Presentation at the PCAOB Symposium, 8 December. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
17. Public Oversight Board (POB). 2000. Report and Recommendations. Panel on Audit Effectiveness. Stamford, CT: POB.
18. Schepanski, A., R. Tubbs, and R. Grimlund. 1992. Issues of concern regarding within- and between-subjects designs in behavioral accounting research. Journal of Accounting Literature 11: 121-149.
19. Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 51-71.