Author
Listed:
- Nemanja Stanišić
- Tijana Radojević
- Nenad Stanić
Abstract
The goal of this study is to overcome the identified methodological limitations of prior studies aimed at predicting the type of auditor opinion and draw definite conclusions on the relative predictive performance of different predictive methods for this particular task. Predictive performance of twelve candidate models from the realms of statistics and machine learning is assessed separately for the two common real-life scenarios: a) when prior information on the client (i.e. types of audit opinion received in the past) is available and can be used in prediction, and b) when such information is not available (e.g. new companies). The results show that, in the first scenario, several methods from both realms achieve comparable predictive performance of around 0.89, as measured by the Area under the curve (AUC). In the second scenario, however, machine learning algorithms, particularly tree-based ones, such as random forest, perform significantly better, achieving the AUC of up to 0.79. Finally, we develop and assess the predictive performance of two hybrid models aimed at combining the strong points of both statistical (i.e. interpretability of results) and machine learning (i.e. handling a large number of predictors and improved accuracy) approaches. The complete procedure is demonstrated in a reproducible manner, using the largest empirical data set ever used in this stream research, comprising 13,561 pairs of annual financial statements and the corresponding audit reports. The procedures described in this study allow audit and finance professionals around the globe to develop and test predictive models that will aid their procedures of audit planning and risk assessment.
Suggested Citation
Handle:
RePEc:sng:ejae01:111
DOI: 10.5937/EJAE16-21832
Download full text from publisher
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:sng:ejae01:111. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: EJAE Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journal.singidunum.ac.rs/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.