IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v2y1985i1p76-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian inference research in auditing: Some methodological suggestions

Author

Listed:
  • MOHAMMAD J. ABDOLMOHAMMADI

Abstract

. The Bayesian statistical inference model has been advocated by auditing researchers over the past two decades as a useful judgment aid to auditors. To quantify judgment, the Bayesian†related audit research has completely relied on the elicitation techniques (ETs) and methodology used and recommended by Winkler (1967a). What have we learned from this literature? Are there any other promising ETs applicable to audit situations? What improvements can be made to the methodologies used in ET†related audit research? This paper highlights the findings and methodologies of the existing literature, identifies promising ETs from related behavioral studies and draws some methodological suggestions for future research. Résumé. Des chercheurs dans le domaine de la vérification ont préconisé au cours des deux dernières décennies que le modèle d'inférence Baysien pouvait constituer une aide utile au jugement des vérificateurs. Pour quantifier le jugement, la recherche reliée au modèle Baysien s'est appuyée sur des techniques et une méthodologie utilisées et recommandées par Winkler (1967 a). Qu'a†t†on appris de ces recommandations? Peut†on s'attendre à d'autres applications dans le domaine de la vérification? Quelles améliorations peuvent être apportées à la méthodologie? Cet article met en évidence les découvertes et la méthodologie sur le sujet, identifie les solutions prometteuses et présente certaines suggestions méthodologiques pour des recherches futures.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi, 1985. "Bayesian inference research in auditing: Some methodological suggestions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 76-94, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:2:y:1985:i:1:p:76-94
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1985.tb00608.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1985.tb00608.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1985.tb00608.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. Scott, Wr, 1979. "Scoring Rules For Probabilistic Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(1), pages 156-178.
    2. Chesley, Gr, 1977. "Subjective-Probability Elicitation - Effect Of Congruity Of Datum And Response Mode On Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11.
    3. Solomon, Ira & Krogstad, Jack L. & Romney, Marshall B. & Tomassini, Lawrence A., 1982. "Auditors' prior probability distributions for account balances," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 27-41.
    4. Chesley, Gr, 1976. "Elicitation Of Subjective Probabilities - Laboratory Study In An Accounting Context," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 27-48.
    5. Crosby, Ma, 1980. "Implications Of Prior Probability Elicitation On Auditor Sample-Size Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 585-593.
    6. Chesley, Gr, 1978. "Subjective-Probability Elicitation Techniques - Performance Comparison," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 225-241.
    7. Carl S. Spetzler & Carl-Axel S. Staël Von Holstein, 1975. "Exceptional Paper--Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 340-358, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William F. Wright, 1988. "Empirical comparison of subjective probability elicitation methods," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, September.
    2. William F. Wright, 1988. "Comparaison empirique des méthodes d'inférence de probabilités subjectives," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 58-69, September.

    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. William F. Wright, 1988. "Empirical comparison of subjective probability elicitation methods," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, September.
    2. William F. Wright, 1988. "Comparaison empirique des méthodes d'inférence de probabilités subjectives," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 58-69, September.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Aurélien Baillon, 2008. "Eliciting Subjective Probabilities Through Exchangeable Events: An Advantage and a Limitation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 76-87, June.
    6. G.R. Chesley, 1986. "Interpretation of uncertainty expressions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 179-199, March.
    7. Thomas W. Keelin & Bradford W. Powley, 2011. "Quantile-Parameterized Distributions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 206-219, September.
    8. Simone Cerroni & Sandra Notaro & W. Douglass Shaw, 2011. "Do Monetary Incentives and Chained Questions Affect the Validity of Risk Estimates Elicited via the Exchangeability Method? An Experimental Investigation," Department of Economics Working Papers 1110, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    9. Kleijnen, J.P.C., 1978. "Economic framework for information systems," Other publications TiSEM 45d15745-54b7-49ee-8b4e-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Hiba Baroud & Jose E. Ramirez‐Marquez & Kash Barker & Claudio M. Rocco, 2014. "Stochastic Measures of Network Resilience: Applications to Waterway Commodity Flows," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1317-1335, July.
    11. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    12. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    13. Anil Gaba & W. Kip Viscusi, 1998. "Differences in Subjective Risk Thresholds: Worker Groups as an Example," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 801-811, June.
    14. Melvin Novick, 1980. "Statistics as psychometrics," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 411-424, December.
    15. Petersen, Elizabeth H. & Fraser, Rob W., 2000. "Grower perceptions of the impact of protein premiums and discounts for wheat," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123725, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Baker, Erin & Keisler, Jeffrey M., 2011. "Cellulosic biofuels: Expert views on prospects for advancement," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 595-605.
    17. Beccue, Phillip C. & Huntington, Hillard G. & Leiby, Paul N. & Vincent, Kenneth R., 2018. "An updated assessment of oil market disruption risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 456-469.
    18. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    19. Niv Ahituv & Jonathan Halpern & Hart Will, 1985. "Audit planning: an algorithmic approach," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 95-110, September.
    20. Guikema, Seth D., 2007. "Formulating informative, data-based priors for failure probability estimation in reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(4), pages 490-502.

    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:2:y:1985:i:1:p:76-94. 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.