Presentation format, relevant experience and task performance

Managerial Auditing Journal

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 124-129

  Bierstaker, James L ^a   Brody, Richard G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Experience; Flowcharts; Internal audit; Internal control; Narratives

Indexed keywords

EID: 84986156454     PISSN: 02686902     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/02686900110385560     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Abdel-Khalik, A.R. (1973), “The effect of aggregating accounting reports on the quality of the lending decision: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 11 (Supplement), pp. 104-38.
2. Anderson, J.C. and Reckers, P.M.J. (1992), “An empirical investigation of the effects of presentation format and personality on auditor’s judgment in applying analytical procedures”, Advances in Accounting, Vol. 10, pp. 19-43.
3. Bierstaker, J. (1999), “A test of the split-attention effect in a professional context”, Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences.
4. Carscallen, M.P. (1982), “Audit efficiency”, The CPA Journal, Vol. 52, pp. 20-2.
5. Chewning, E.G. Jr and Harrell, A. (1990), “The effect of information overload on decision makers’ cue utilization levels and decision quality in a financial distress decision task”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15, pp. 527-42.
6. Cushing, B.E. and Loebbecke, J.K. (1986), Comparison of Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms, American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL.
7. Davis, J.T. (1996), “Experience and auditors’ selection of relevant information for preliminary control risk assessments”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 15, pp. 16-37.
8. Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
9. Frederick, D. (1991), “Auditors’ representation and retrieval of internal control knowledge”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 66, pp. 240-58.
10. Harvey, N. and Bolger, F. (1996), “Graphs versus tables: effects of data presentation format on judgmental forecasting”, International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 12, pp. 119-37.
11. Levie, W.H. and Lentz, R. (1982), “Effects of text illustrations: a review of research”, Educational Communications and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research and Development, Vol. 30, pp. 195-232.
12. Mayer, R.E. (1989), “Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 240-6.
13. Mock, T. and Turner, J.L. (1981), Internal Accounting Control Evaluation and Auditor Judgment, Audit Research Monograph No. 3, AICPA, New York, NY.
14. Mock, T. and Willingham, W. (1983), “An improved method of documenting and evaluating a system of internal accounting controls”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 2, pp. 91-9.
15. Moreland, J.M., Dansereau, D.F. and Chmielewski, T.L. (1997), “Recall of descriptive information: the roles of presentation format, annotation strategy, and individual differences”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 521-33.
16. Newell, A. and Simon, H. (1972), Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
17. Pennington, N. (1987), “Stimulus structures and mental representations in expert comprehension of computer programs”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 295-341.
18. Plumlee, D. (1985), “The standard of objectivity for internal auditors: memory and bias effects”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23, pp. 683-99.
19. Purnell, K.N., Solman R.T. and Sweller J. (1991), “The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load”, Instructional Science, Vol. 20, pp. 443-62.
20. Purvis, S.E.C. (1989), “The effect of audit documentation format on data collection”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 14, pp. 551-63.
21. Rewey, K.L., Dansereau, D.F. and Peel, J.L. (1991), “Knowledge maps and information processing strategies”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 203-14.
22. Wright, W. (1995), “Superior loan collectibility judgments given graphical displays”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 144-54.