Application of a Decision Aid in the Judgmental Evaluation of Substantive Test of Details Samples

Butler, Stephen A.

doi:10.2307/2490824

Cited by 44 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Auditors interpret the new information and audit evidence according to existing knowledge, in order to integrate this information within the overall picture in their mind about the audit client"s system. A lot of audit studies detected that different adoptions of mental models lead to different effectiveness in audit judgment when auditors follow different audit structures, such as Boritz (1985), Butler (1985), Bamber and Snowball (1988), Bamber et al (1989), Weber (1980, Libby and Frederick (1990), Bedard and Biggs (1991), Nelson (1993), Libby and Tan (1994), Choo and Tortman (1994), Piercey (2008), Hmmersley (2006), and Earley et al (2008). Although the term "mental model" was not specifically mentioned in some of these studies, yet there are strong indications that auditors" previous knowledge and newly acquired information from the proposed structure were integrated in an organized manner to produce audit judgment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audit Structure, Time Pressure and Judgment Accuracy: A Comparison between Strategic System Audit and Traditional Audit

Abuaddous¹,

Hanefah²,

Laili³

2015

IJEF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of audit practice is a continuous process. The strategic system audit (SSA) method is a quite recent audit procedure that represents a complete shift from old audit techniques as it relies on assessing the client"s business risk using a top-down rather than a bottom-up (traditional) approach. Previous studies focused on the effectiveness of SSA in performing audit. In addition, previous studies did not rule out the role of auditors" experience in an experimental procedure that compares between the two methods. Moreover, the effect of time pressure on auditors" "JDM" effectiveness under Traditional Audit (TA) and SSA during the orientation phase is still lacking in the literature. Using expert auditors as a benchmark and 81 master degree students, a2x2 factorial design experiment and a Mann-Whitney U test show that auditors under SSA method issue a more effective audit assessment than under TA in the absence or presence of time pressure.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audit Structure, Time Pressure and Judgment Accuracy: A Comparison between Strategic System Audit and Traditional Audit

Abuaddous¹,

Hanefah²,

Laili³

2015

IJEF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies by Butler (1985), Heiman (1990) and Koonce (1992) on altering auditors' probabilistic judgments suggest that debiasing mechanisms beyond accountability and documentation can be effective. Butler (1985) designed a decision aid to direct auditors' attention to underlying distributional data that tend to be underweighted when assessing sampling risk.…”

Section: Recency In Auditingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Butler (1985) designed a decision aid to direct auditors' attention to underlying distributional data that tend to be underweighted when assessing sampling risk. His simple decision aid improved auditors' risk assessments and led auditors to more correct decisions with regard to accepting or rejecting a reported account balance.…”

Section: Recency In Auditingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eliminating recency with self‐review: the case of auditors' ‘going concern’ judgments

Ashton¹,

Kennedy²

2002

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the use of self-review to debias recency. Recency is found in the 'going concern' judgments of staff auditors, but is successfully eliminated by the auditor's use of a simple self-review technique that would be extremely easy to implement in audit practice. Auditors who self-review are also less inclined to make audit report choices that are inconsistent with their going concern judgments. These results are important because the judgments of staff auditors often determine the type and extent of documentation in audit workpapers and serve as preliminary inputs for senior auditors' judgments and choices. If staff auditors' judgments are affected by recency, the impact of this bias may be impounded in the ultimate judgments and choices of senior auditors. Since biased judgments can expose auditors to significant costs involving extended audit procedures, legal liability and diminished reputation, simple debiasing techniques that reduce this exposure are valuable. The paper also explores some future research needs and other important issues concerning judgment debiasing in applied professional settings.

show abstract

“…Banyak penggunaan standar daftar risiko berdasarkan pada SAS No.82 dan sekarang menyusun daftar periksa sekitar SAS No 99 faktor risiko (Shelton et al, 2001;Beasley dan Jenkins, 2003;Asare dan Wright, 2004;Mock dan Turner, 2005). Bantuan keputusan dirancang untuk fokus perhatian auditor pada kelas masalah yang lebih luas yang dapat terjadi pada situasi kecurangan (Butler, 1985). Agar konsisten dengan praktik, bantuan keputusan dalam penelitian ini didasarkan pada SAS No.99 faktor risiko.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

Dampak Kelompok Dan Ketergantungan Bantuan Pengambilan Keputusan Pada Penilaian Risiko Kecurangan

Prasetyo¹

2017

JAAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstrakPenelitian ini meneliti kualitas keputusan dan peringkat kemungkinan kecurangan dalam penilaian risiko kecurangan oleh kelompok atau individu dengan dan tanpa bantuan keputusan. Hal ini diantisipasi bahwa individu akan menunjukkan ketergantungan yang lebih tinggi pada bantuan keputusan daripada kelompok, sedangkan kelompok diharapkan untuk mengidentifikasi ide-ide kecurangan yang lebih berkualitas dan menghasilkan penilaian kemungkinan kecurangan yang lebih efektif. Selanjutnya, untuk meneliti hubungan ini, sebuah eksperimen dirancang dan dilakukan. Partisipan dalam eksperimen ini adalah mahasiswa S1 Akuntansi semester 7 yang diasumsikan sebagai sebagai junior auditor di kantor akuntan publik. Prosedur pengambilan data yaitu dengan melakukan eksperimen dan desain eksperimen. Para partisipan melakukan penilaian risiko kecurangan dalam 2x2 antara subjek desain eksperimen. Selanjutnya, uji beda t-test digunakan untuk menentukan apakah dua sampel yang tidak berhubungan memiliki nilai rata-rata yang berbeda. Hasil penelitian membuktikan bahwa ternyata baik kelompok brainstorming dan bantuan keputusan tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap penilaian risiko kecurangan. Kata Kunci: Dampak kelompok, ketergantungan, penilaian risiko kecurangan AbstractThis study examines the quality of decisions and rank possibility of fraud in the fraud risk assesment by groups or individuals with and without the help of the decision. It is anticipated that people will show a higher dependency on decision aid reliance rather than a group, while the group is expected to identify ideas of fraud in higher quality and produce fraud risk assesment more effectively. Then, to investigate this relationship, an experiment was designed and conducted. Participants in this experiment is a 7th semester student of accounting that assumed as a junior auditor at the public accounting firm. Data collection procedures by performing experiments and experimental design. The participants perform fraud risk assessment in the 2x2 between subjects experimental design. Furthermore, t-test was used to determine whether two samples were not related have an average value different. The research proves that in fact both group brainstorming and decision aid reliance did not significantly affect the risk assessment of fraud.

show abstract

Application of a Decision Aid in the Judgmental Evaluation of Substantive Test of Details Samples

Cited by 44 publications

References 12 publications

Audit Structure, Time Pressure and Judgment Accuracy: A Comparison between Strategic System Audit and Traditional Audit

Audit Structure, Time Pressure and Judgment Accuracy: A Comparison between Strategic System Audit and Traditional Audit

Eliminating recency with self‐review: the case of auditors' ‘going concern’ judgments

Dampak Kelompok Dan Ketergantungan Bantuan Pengambilan Keputusan Pada Penilaian Risiko Kecurangan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About