IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v8y1991i1p293-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multiple criteria model for audit planning decisions

Author

Listed:
  • JEAN C. BEDARD
  • BABU R. GOPI
  • B. VIJAYALAKSHMI

Abstract

. The auditor must trade off potential losses from both ineffectiveness (failure to detect client errors) and inefficiency. However, auditing standards do not specify how the auditor is to achieve an appropriate balance between these two conflicting objectives. This paper presents a multiple criteria decision†making (MCDM) model of an audit planning decision in which an effectiveness vs. efficiency trade†off is required. The key advantage of the MCDM model developed here is that an optimal solution is obtained without requiring ex ante specification of a loss function by the auditor. Thus, the model addresses a previously recognized problem (e.g., Menzefricke, 1984) that loss functions may vary depending on characteristics of the audit. In this paper, we develop a model of the auditor's sampling plan selection problem incorporating multiple decision criteria, use the model under a variety of simulated audit conditions, and compare our results with previous research. Résumé. Le vérificateur doit parvenir à un compromis entre les pertes pouvant être occasionnées à la fois par l'inefficacité (non†détection d'erreurs commises par l'entreprise cliente) et l'inefficience. Les normes de vérification ne précisent cependant pas comment le vérificateur doit parvenir à un équilibre approprié entre ces deux objectifs conflictuels. Les auteurs proposent un modèle de dècision à critères multiples qui s'applique à la décision de planification de la vérification exigeant un compromis efficacité†efficience. Le principal avantage de ce modèle est qu'il permet d'obtenir une solution optimale sans exiger la formulation ex ante par le vérificateur d'une fonction de perte. Le modèle porte done sur une question sur laquelle se sont déjà penchés les chercheurs (Menzefricke, 1984, par exemple): les fonctions de perte peuvent varier selon les caractéristiques de la vérification. Les auteurs élaborent ici un modèle qui s'applique au problème de sélection par le vérificateur d'un plan d'échantillonnage incorporant des critères de décision multiples. Ils utilisent le modèle en simulant diverses situations de vérification et comparent les résultats obtenus avec ceux des travaux précédents.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:8:y:1991:i:1:p:293-308
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1991.tb00846.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1991.tb00846.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1991.tb00846.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. Einhorn, Hj & Hogarth, Rm, 1981. "Behavioral Decision-Theory - Processes Of Judgment And Choice," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 1-31.
    2. Arrington, Ce & Hillison, W & Jensen, Re, 1984. "An Application Of Analytical Hierarchy Process To Model Expert Judgments On Analytical Review Procedures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 298-312.
    3. Hurwicz, Leonid, 1973. "The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 1-30, May.
    4. Gerald W. Evans, 1984. "An Overview of Techniques for Solving Multiobjective Mathematical Programs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1268-1282, November.
    5. Scott, Wr, 1975. "Auditors Loss Functions Implicit In Consumption-Investment Models," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13, pages 98-117.
    6. Kinney, Wr, 1975. "Decision-Theory Approach To Sampling Problem In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 117-132.
    7. Menzefricke, U, 1983. "On Sampling Plan Selection With Dollar-Unit Sampling," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 96-105.
    8. Finley, Dr, 1985. "Counterexamples To Proposed Dollar-Unit Sampling Algorithm," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 402-404.
    9. 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.
    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. David R. Finley, 1989. "Decision theory analysis of audit discovery sampling," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 692-719, March.
    2. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    3. 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.
    4. Wally Smieliauskas, 1986. "Control of sampling risks in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 102-124, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2020. "The Social Costs of Side Trading," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1608-1622.
    7. Robert Cooter & Winand Emons, 2004. "Truth-Bonding and Other Truth-Revealing Mechanisms for Courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 307-327, May.
    8. Warr, Peter G., 1974. "The Economics Of Shadow Pricing: Market Distortions And Public Investment," Staff Papers 14116, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    9. Kaliszewski, Ignacy & Michalowski, Wojtek, 1999. "Searching for psychologically stable solutions of multiple criteria decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 549-562, November.
    10. Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Tian, Guoqiang, 2004. "On the Informational Requirements of Decentralized Pareto-Satisfactory Mechanisms in Economies with Increasing Returns," MPRA Paper 41226, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2006.
    12. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    13. Francisco J. André & Laura Riesgo, 2006. "A Duality Procedure to Elicit Nonlinear Multiattribute Utility Functions," Working Papers 06.02, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    14. S. Larsson & G. R. Chesley, 1986. "An analysis of the auditor's uncertainty about probabilities," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 259-282, March.
    15. Krishnamurti, Tamar & Schwartz, Daniel & Davis, Alexander & Fischhoff, Baruch & de Bruin, Wändi Bruine & Lave, Lester & Wang, Jack, 2012. "Preparing for smart grid technologies: A behavioral decision research approach to understanding consumer expectations about smart meters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 790-797.
    16. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Institutions as cognitive media between strategic interactions and individual beliefs," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 17, pages 298-312, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Chen Liang & Yili Hong & Pei-Yu Chen & Benjamin B. M. Shao, 2022. "The Screening Role of Design Parameters for Service Procurement Auctions in Online Service Outsourcing Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1324-1343, December.
    18. Attar, Andrea & Campioni, Eloisa & Mariotti, Thomas & Pavan, Alessandro, 2021. "Keeping the Agents in the Dark: Private Disclosures in Competing Mechanisms," TSE Working Papers 21-1227, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Dec 2023.
    19. Pedro Longart & Eugenia Wickens & Ali Bakir, 2016. "Consumer Decision Process in Restaurant Selection: An Application of the Stylized EKB Model," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 28(2), pages 173-190.
    20. Dalton, P.S. & Gonzalez Jimenez, V.H. & Noussair, C.N., 2015. "Paying with Self-Chosen Goals : Incentives and Gender Differences," Discussion Paper 2015-021, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    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:8:y:1991:i:1:p:293-308. 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.