A longitudinal investigation of auditor error projection decisions

Auditing

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 69-84

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit quality; Containment; Error projection; Sampling

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149084960     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.2.69     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1981. Audit Sampling. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 39. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. _. 1984. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 2000a. Audit Adjustments. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 89. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. _. 2000b. Audit Committee Communications. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 90. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Burgstahler, D., and J. Jiambalvo. 1986. Sample error characteristics and projection of error to audit populations. The Accounting Review (April): 233-248.
6. _, S. Glover, and J. Jiambalvo. 2000. Error projection and uncertainty in the evaluation of aggregate error. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 79-99.
7. Elder, R., and R. Allen. 1998. An empirical investigation of the auditor's decision to project errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 71-87.
8. _, and _. 2003. A longitudinal field investigation of auditor risk assessments and sample size decisions. The Accounting Review (October): 983-1002.
9. Hermanson, H. 1997. The effects of audit structure and experience on auditors' decisions to isolate errors. Behavioral Research In Accounting (Supplement): 76-93.
10. 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.
11. Maher, M., P. Tiessen, R. Colson, and A. Broman. 1992. Competition and audit fees. The Accounting Review 67 (1): 199-211.
12. Panel on Audit Effectiveness. 2000. The Panel on Audit Effectiveness: Report and Recommendations. Stamford, CT: Public Oversight Board.
13. Sanders, G., A. Allen, and L. Korte. 1995. Municipal audit fees: Has increased competition made a difference? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 14 (1): 105-114.
14. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1999. Materiality. Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
15. Wheeler, S., R. Dusenbury, and J. L. Reimers. 1997. Projecting sample misstatements to audit populations: Theoretical, professional and empirical considerations. Decision Sciences (Spring): 261-268.