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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Decision sciences 1997-04, Vol.28 (2), p.261-278 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & 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 & 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 |