Loading…

Projecting Sample Misstatements to Audit Populations: Theoretical, Professional, and Empirical Considerations

ABSTRACT This paper examines the auditing decision to isolate or project errors found in sampling an audit population. The topic is interesting from both practical and theoretical viewpoints because prior research suggests that theory and practice are juxtaposed. Prior research has suggested a strin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Decision sciences 1997-04, Vol.28 (2), p.261-278
Main Authors: Wheeler, Stephen, Dusenbury, Richard, Reimers, Jane
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3821-5582829a425af775e403c74fad554dac393ee2d3899d523b4d9968008d09e8043
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3821-5582829a425af775e403c74fad554dac393ee2d3899d523b4d9968008d09e8043
container_end_page 278
container_issue 2
container_start_page 261
container_title Decision sciences
container_volume 28
creator Wheeler, Stephen
Dusenbury, Richard
Reimers, Jane
description ABSTRACT This paper examines the auditing decision to isolate or project errors found in sampling an audit population. The topic is interesting from both practical and theoretical viewpoints because prior research suggests that theory and practice are juxtaposed. Prior research has suggested a stringent theoretical norm in which few errors should be isolated and also suggests that, in practice, auditors commonly isolate errors that they perceive to be confined to a well‐defined subpopulation. We extend this research by using the professional auditing standards as a backdrop for the study of both theoretical and practical aspects of the projection‐isolation decision. As to theory, we show that a biased estimator (i.e., one that excludes errors known not to recur) may be more precise than an unbiased estimator under certain assumptions about sample sizes and the frequencies of errors in accounting populations. Using simulation, we specify conditions under which a biased estimator is more precise than an unbiased one. As to practice, we show that auditors rely on containment information when choosing to project, and we use verbal reports to develop a description of auditors' strategies for using containment information. Considering both the theoretical and practical aspects in light of professional standards, we conclude that, under specific conditions, isolation of sample misstatements is appropriate. Further investigation of the topic appears warranted.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01311.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_198097278</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>13129900</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3821-5582829a425af775e403c74fad554dac393ee2d3899d523b4d9968008d09e8043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkFFP5CAYRclmN9lZ3f9AfLYVCgzgizHjbDVRd6JufCRYvu5S22kXmDj-e9vU-C4vhNx7T8hB6IiSnI7npMmp4CQTmoqcai3z9EQoozTff0GLj-grWhBCaSYZFd_RjxgbQshScLZA3Sb0DVTJb__ie9sNLeAbH2OyCTrYpohTj893zie86Ydda5Pvt_EUP_yDPkDylW2P8YioIcYxmV526_C6G3yYQrwa695BmIeH6Ftt2wg_3-8D9OfX-mF1mV3_Lq9W59dZxVRBMyFUoQpteSFsLaUATlgleW2dENzZimkGUDimtHaiYE_cab1UhChHNCjC2QE6mrlD6P_vICbT9Lswfi8aqhXRspBqLJ3OpSr0MQaozRB8Z8OrocRMdk1jJoVmUmgmu-bdrtmP47N5_OJbeP3E0lysV1fFko6EbCb4mGD_QbDh2Swlk8I83pamLO_4pnykhrE3FhuR7w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>198097278</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Projecting Sample Misstatements to Audit Populations: Theoretical, Professional, and Empirical Considerations</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ABI/INFORM global</source><source>Wiley</source><creator>Wheeler, Stephen ; Dusenbury, Richard ; Reimers, Jane</creator><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Stephen ; Dusenbury, Richard ; Reimers, Jane</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT This paper examines the auditing decision to isolate or project errors found in sampling an audit population. The topic is interesting from both practical and theoretical viewpoints because prior research suggests that theory and practice are juxtaposed. Prior research has suggested a stringent theoretical norm in which few errors should be isolated and also suggests that, in practice, auditors commonly isolate errors that they perceive to be confined to a well‐defined subpopulation. We extend this research by using the professional auditing standards as a backdrop for the study of both theoretical and practical aspects of the projection‐isolation decision. As to theory, we show that a biased estimator (i.e., one that excludes errors known not to recur) may be more precise than an unbiased estimator under certain assumptions about sample sizes and the frequencies of errors in accounting populations. Using simulation, we specify conditions under which a biased estimator is more precise than an unbiased one. As to practice, we show that auditors rely on containment information when choosing to project, and we use verbal reports to develop a description of auditors' strategies for using containment information. Considering both the theoretical and practical aspects in light of professional standards, we conclude that, under specific conditions, isolation of sample misstatements is appropriate. Further investigation of the topic appears warranted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0011-7315</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-5915</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01311.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DESCDQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Accounting ; Accounting/Auditing and Statistics ; Auditing standards ; Auditors ; Bias ; Errors ; Estimates ; Estimation bias ; Expected values ; Hypotheses ; Judgments ; Mean square errors ; Sampling techniques ; SAS 39 ; Statements on auditing standards ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Decision sciences, 1997-04, Vol.28 (2), p.261-278</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Institute for Decision Sciences Spring 1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3821-5582829a425af775e403c74fad554dac393ee2d3899d523b4d9968008d09e8043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3821-5582829a425af775e403c74fad554dac393ee2d3899d523b4d9968008d09e8043</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/198097278/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/198097278?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,11671,12830,27907,27908,33206,36043,44346,74646</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dusenbury, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reimers, Jane</creatorcontrib><title>Projecting Sample Misstatements to Audit Populations: Theoretical, Professional, and Empirical Considerations</title><title>Decision sciences</title><description>ABSTRACT This paper examines the auditing decision to isolate or project errors found in sampling an audit population. The topic is interesting from both practical and theoretical viewpoints because prior research suggests that theory and practice are juxtaposed. Prior research has suggested a stringent theoretical norm in which few errors should be isolated and also suggests that, in practice, auditors commonly isolate errors that they perceive to be confined to a well‐defined subpopulation. We extend this research by using the professional auditing standards as a backdrop for the study of both theoretical and practical aspects of the projection‐isolation decision. As to theory, we show that a biased estimator (i.e., one that excludes errors known not to recur) may be more precise than an unbiased estimator under certain assumptions about sample sizes and the frequencies of errors in accounting populations. Using simulation, we specify conditions under which a biased estimator is more precise than an unbiased one. As to practice, we show that auditors rely on containment information when choosing to project, and we use verbal reports to develop a description of auditors' strategies for using containment information. Considering both the theoretical and practical aspects in light of professional standards, we conclude that, under specific conditions, isolation of sample misstatements is appropriate. Further investigation of the topic appears warranted.</description><subject>Accounting</subject><subject>Accounting/Auditing and Statistics</subject><subject>Auditing standards</subject><subject>Auditors</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Estimation bias</subject><subject>Expected values</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Judgments</subject><subject>Mean square errors</subject><subject>Sampling techniques</subject><subject>SAS 39</subject><subject>Statements on auditing standards</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0011-7315</issn><issn>1540-5915</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkFFP5CAYRclmN9lZ3f9AfLYVCgzgizHjbDVRd6JufCRYvu5S22kXmDj-e9vU-C4vhNx7T8hB6IiSnI7npMmp4CQTmoqcai3z9EQoozTff0GLj-grWhBCaSYZFd_RjxgbQshScLZA3Sb0DVTJb__ie9sNLeAbH2OyCTrYpohTj893zie86Ydda5Pvt_EUP_yDPkDylW2P8YioIcYxmV526_C6G3yYQrwa695BmIeH6Ftt2wg_3-8D9OfX-mF1mV3_Lq9W59dZxVRBMyFUoQpteSFsLaUATlgleW2dENzZimkGUDimtHaiYE_cab1UhChHNCjC2QE6mrlD6P_vICbT9Lswfi8aqhXRspBqLJ3OpSr0MQaozRB8Z8OrocRMdk1jJoVmUmgmu-bdrtmP47N5_OJbeP3E0lysV1fFko6EbCb4mGD_QbDh2Swlk8I83pamLO_4pnykhrE3FhuR7w</recordid><startdate>199704</startdate><enddate>199704</enddate><creator>Wheeler, Stephen</creator><creator>Dusenbury, Richard</creator><creator>Reimers, Jane</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>American Institute for Decision Sciences</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199704</creationdate><title>Projecting Sample Misstatements to Audit Populations: Theoretical, Professional, and Empirical Considerations</title><author>Wheeler, Stephen ; Dusenbury, Richard ; Reimers, Jane</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3821-5582829a425af775e403c74fad554dac393ee2d3899d523b4d9968008d09e8043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Accounting</topic><topic>Accounting/Auditing and Statistics</topic><topic>Auditing standards</topic><topic>Auditors</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Estimation bias</topic><topic>Expected values</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Judgments</topic><topic>Mean square errors</topic><topic>Sampling techniques</topic><topic>SAS 39</topic><topic>Statements on auditing standards</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wheeler, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dusenbury, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reimers, Jane</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Decision sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wheeler, Stephen</au><au>Dusenbury, Richard</au><au>Reimers, Jane</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Projecting Sample Misstatements to Audit Populations: Theoretical, Professional, and Empirical Considerations</atitle><jtitle>Decision sciences</jtitle><date>1997-04</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>261</spage><epage>278</epage><pages>261-278</pages><issn>0011-7315</issn><eissn>1540-5915</eissn><coden>DESCDQ</coden><abstract>ABSTRACT This paper examines the auditing decision to isolate or project errors found in sampling an audit population. The topic is interesting from both practical and theoretical viewpoints because prior research suggests that theory and practice are juxtaposed. Prior research has suggested a stringent theoretical norm in which few errors should be isolated and also suggests that, in practice, auditors commonly isolate errors that they perceive to be confined to a well‐defined subpopulation. We extend this research by using the professional auditing standards as a backdrop for the study of both theoretical and practical aspects of the projection‐isolation decision. As to theory, we show that a biased estimator (i.e., one that excludes errors known not to recur) may be more precise than an unbiased estimator under certain assumptions about sample sizes and the frequencies of errors in accounting populations. Using simulation, we specify conditions under which a biased estimator is more precise than an unbiased one. As to practice, we show that auditors rely on containment information when choosing to project, and we use verbal reports to develop a description of auditors' strategies for using containment information. Considering both the theoretical and practical aspects in light of professional standards, we conclude that, under specific conditions, isolation of sample misstatements is appropriate. Further investigation of the topic appears warranted.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01311.x</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0011-7315
ispartof Decision sciences, 1997-04, Vol.28 (2), p.261-278
issn 0011-7315
1540-5915
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_198097278
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ABI/INFORM global; Wiley
subjects Accounting
Accounting/Auditing and Statistics
Auditing standards
Auditors
Bias
Errors
Estimates
Estimation bias
Expected values
Hypotheses
Judgments
Mean square errors
Sampling techniques
SAS 39
Statements on auditing standards
Studies
title Projecting Sample Misstatements to Audit Populations: Theoretical, Professional, and Empirical Considerations
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T05%3A28%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Projecting%20Sample%20Misstatements%20to%20Audit%20Populations:%20Theoretical,%20Professional,%20and%20Empirical%20Considerations&rft.jtitle=Decision%20sciences&rft.au=Wheeler,%20Stephen&rft.date=1997-04&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=261&rft.epage=278&rft.pages=261-278&rft.issn=0011-7315&rft.eissn=1540-5915&rft.coden=DESCDQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01311.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E13129900%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3821-5582829a425af775e403c74fad554dac393ee2d3899d523b4d9968008d09e8043%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=198097278&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true