IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v5y1989i2p692-719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision theory analysis of audit discovery sampling

Author

Listed:
  • DAVID R. FINLEY

Abstract

. Discovery sampling is a frequently used auditing technique. The objective of discovery sampling is to decide whether to accept or reject an audit population for which acceptance is appropriate only if the occurrence rate of serious errors is very low. This objective is met by auditing a sample and accepting only if the sample is free of serious errors. This paper first develops a Bayesian decision theory approach to the discovery sampling problem. Using this approach the auditor optimizes sampling effort according to a decision model that explicitly includes such factors as risk of failure of accepting too high an error rate, losses from wrong decisions, sampling costs, and prior distribution of the error rate. The form of the loss function used includes both linear and quadratic loss functions as special cases. Methods and formulas applicable to various prior distributions for the error rate are obtained. Detailed results are derived for two state†prior and gamma†prior distributions. A minimax approach that removes the need to elicit a complete prior distribution is then developed. Explicit formulas are obtained for both the admissible sample size range and for the minimax sample size. A comparison of results indicates that the minimax approach is nearly as efficient as approaches that require elicitation of prior problem rate distributions. Further analysis generalizes the methods by showing that for the Bayesian and minimax methods, analytical results can be derived for various forms of loss functions. Résumé. Le sondage de dépistage est une technique fréquemment utilisée en vérification qui a pour objectif de déterminer s'il faut accepter ou rejeter une population pour laquelle l'acceptation n'est appropriée que si la fréquence d'erreurs graves est très faible. L'objectif est réalisé au moyen de la vérification d'un échantillon et de son acceptation seulement si l'échantillon est exempt d'erreurs graves. L'auteur met d'abord au point une méthode inspirée de la théorie bayesienne de la décision, adaptée au problème du sondage de dépistage. En utilisant cette méthode, le vérificateur optimise le travail d'échantillonnage conformément à un modèle de décision qui comprend explicitement des facteurs tels que le risque d'échec ou le risque d'acceptation d'un taux d'erreur trop élevé, les pertes attribuables à de mauvaises décisions, les coûts d'échantillonnage et la distribution a priori du taux d'erreur. Des formes de fonction de perte utilisées, celles linéaires et quadratiques constituent des cas spéciaux. L'auteur obtient des méthodes et des formules applicables aux diverses distributions a priori du taux d'erreur. Il dérive les résultats analytiques pour les distributions a priori binômiale et gamma. L'auteur met ensuite au point une méthode minimax supprimant la nécessité d'obtenir une distribution a priori complète. Il obtient des formules explicites pour la fourchette de tailles d'échantillons admissibles ainsi que pour la taille de l'échantillon minimax. Une comparaison des résultats indique que la méthode minimax est presque aussi efficace que les méthodes qui exigent l'obtention de distributions a priori de taux d'erreurs. Le prolongement de l'analyse permet de généraliser les méthodes; il démontre en effet que pour les méthodes bayesienne aussi bien que minimax, les résultats analytiques peuvent être dérivés pour diverses formes de fonctions de perte.

Suggested Citation

  • David R. Finley, 1989. "Decision theory analysis of audit discovery sampling," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 692-719, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:5:y:1989:i:2:p:692-719
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1989.tb00734.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1989.tb00734.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1989.tb00734.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teitlebaum, Ad & Robinson, Cf, 1975. "Real Risks In Audit Sampling," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13, pages 70-91.
    2. Kaplan, Rs, 1975. "Sample-Size Computations For Dollar-Unit Sampling," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13, pages 126-133.
    3. Kinney, Wr, 1975. "Decision-Theory Approach To Sampling Problem In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 117-132.
    4. Menzefricke, U, 1983. "On Sampling Plan Selection With Dollar-Unit Sampling," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 96-105.
    5. Godfrey, Jt & Andrews, Rw, 1982. "A Finite Population Bayesian Model For Compliance Testing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 304-315.
    6. Menzefricke, U, 1984. "Using Decision-Theory For Planning Audit Sample-Size With Dollar Unit Sampling," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 570-587.
    7. Kinney, Wr, 1975. "Decision-Theory Aspects Of Internal Control-System Design-Compliance And Substantive Tests," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13, pages 14-29.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wally Smieliauskas, 1986. "Control of sampling risks in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 102-124, September.
    2. David R. Finley, 1994. "Game Theoretic Analysis of Discovery Sampling for Internal Fraud Control Auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 91-114, June.
    3. Jean C. Bedard & Babu R. Gopi & B. Vijayalakshmi, 1991. "A multiple criteria model for audit planning decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 293-308, September.
    4. Wally Smieliauskas, 1989. "A note on Bayesian risk models of audit practice," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 720-732, March.
    5. Ramona L. Trader & H. Fenwick Huss, 1987. "An investigation of the possible effects of nonsampling error on inference in auditing: A Bayesian analysis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 227-239, September.
    6. Laitinen, Erkki K. & Laitinen, Teija, 2015. "A probability tree model of audit quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(2), pages 665-677.
    7. Scott D. Vandervelde, 2006. "The Importance of Account Relations when Responding to Interim Audit Testing Results," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 789-821, September.
    8. Hung Chan, K. & Mo, Phyllis L. L., 1998. "Ownership effects on audit-detected error characteristics: An empirical study in an emerging economy," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 235-261.
    9. Skerratt, L.C.L. & Woodhead, A., 1992. "Modelling audit risk," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-137.
    10. Sezen Uludag, 2016. "The importance of control environment in an organization for an independent auditor to determine nature,timing, and extent of substantive tests: An application in Turkey," Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, Professor Dr. Usman Raja, vol. 2(6), pages 294-303.
    11. Nader Gemayel & Elizabeth Stasny & James Tackett & Douglas Wolfe, 2012. "Ranked set sampling: an auditing application," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 413-422, November.
    12. Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi & Paul D. Berger, 1986. "A test of the accuracy of probability assessment techniques in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 149-165, September.
    13. Lowell Dworin & Richard A. Grimlund, 1989. "A comprehensive hypothesis testing approach to dollar unit sampling," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 674-691, March.
    14. Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi & Paul D. Berger, 1986. "Une expérience sur la précision des techniques d‘évaluation des probabilités en vérification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 166-183, September.
    15. Arlette C. Wilson & Dennis Hudson, 1989. "An empirical study of regression analysis as an analytical procedure," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 196-215, September.
    16. Ulrich Menzefricke & Wally Smieliauskas, 1988. "On sample size allocation in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 314-336, March.
    17. Rainer Göb & Kristina Lurz, 2014. "Design and analysis of shortest two-sided confidence intervals for a probability under prior information," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 389-413, April.
    18. Dan A. Simunic & Michael T. Stein, 1990. "Audit risk in a client portfolio context," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 329-343, March.
    19. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    20. Jane Ham & Donna Losell & Wally Smieliauskas, 1987. "Some empirical evidence on the stability of accounting error characteristics over time," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 210-226, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:5:y:1989:i:2:p:692-719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.