Journal of
Accounting and Taxation

  • Abbreviation: J. Account. Taxation
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 2141-6664
  • DOI: 10.5897/JAT
  • Start Year: 2009
  • Published Articles: 112

Full Length Research Paper

Analytical procedures decision aids for generating explanations: Current state of theoretical development and implications of their use

John Anderson
  • John Anderson
  • San Diego State University, United States.
  • Google Scholar
Damon Fleming*
  • Damon Fleming*
  • San Diego State University, United States.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 25 May 2016
  •  Accepted: 15 August 2016
  •  Published: 31 October 2016

References

 

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1988). Analytical Procedures. Statement on Auditing Standards P 56. New York, NY: AICPA.

 

Anderson JC, Jennings MM, Kaplan SE, Reckers PMJ (1995). The effect of using diagnostic decision aids for analytical procedures on judges' liability judgments. J. Acc. Public Policy (Spring): Pp. 33-62.

 

Anderson JCS, Kaplan E, Reckers PMJ (1992). The effects of output interference on analytical procedures judgments. Auditing: J. Pract. Theory pp. 1-13.

 

Anderson JCS (1997). The effects of interference and availability from hypotheses generated by a decision aid upon analytical procedures judgments. Behav. Res. Account. pp. 1-20.

 

Anderson JC, Moreno KK, Mueller JM (2003). The effect of client vs. decision aid as a source of explanations upon auditors' sufficiency judgments: a research note. Behav. Res. Account. (15):1-11.
Crossref

 

Anderson U, Wright WF (1988). Expertise and the explanation effect. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process (42):250-269.
Crossref

 

Ashton AH, Ashton RH (1988). Sequential belief revision in auditing. Account. Rev. pp. 623:641.

 

Bamber EM, Gillet PR, Mock TJ, Trotman KT (1995). Audit judgment. In Audit Practice, Research, and Education a Productive Collaboration, edited by T. B. Bell, and A. M. Wright, pp. 55-85. New York, NY: AICPA.

 

Biggs SF, Knechel WR, Walker NR, Wallace WA, Willingham JJ (1995). Analytical Procedures. In Auditing Practice, Research, and Education, a Productive Collaboration, edited by T. B. Bell, and A. M. Wright, 110-143. New York, NY: AICPA.

 

Blocher E, Willingham J (1988). Analytical Review: A Guide to Performing Analytical Procedures. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 

Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representations. J. Exp. Psychol. (4):330-344.
Crossref

 

Fleming DM, Romanus RN, Lightner SM (2009). The Effect of Professional Context on Accounting Students' Moral Reasoning. Issues. Account. Educ. 24(1):13-30.
Crossref

 

Heiman VB (1990). Auditors' assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in analytical review. Account. Rev. pp. 875-891.

 

Hermanson DR (1997). Commentary on The Effects of Interference and Availability From Hypotheses Generated by a Decision Aid Upon Analytical Procedures Judgments. Behav. Res. Account pp. 21-25.

 

Hoch S (1984). Availability and interference in predictive judgment. J. Exp. Psychol. 10:649-662.
Crossref

 

Hunton JE, Rose JM (2010). 21st Century Auditing: Advancing Decision Support Systems to Achieve Continuous Auditing. Account. Horiz. (2):297-312.
Crossref

 

Janvrin D, Bierstaker J, Lowe DJ (2008). An Examination of Audit Information Technology Use and Perceived Importance. Account. Horiz. pp. 1-21.
Crossref

 

Kachelmeier SJ, Messier .Jr. WF (1990). An investigation of the influence of a nonstatistical decision aid on auditor sample size decisions. Account. Rev. pp. 209-226.

 

Kaplan SE, Moeckel C, Williams JD (1992). Auditors' hypothesis plausibility assessments in an analytical review setting. Auditing: J. Pract. Theory pp. 50-65.

 

Kinney Jr. WR, Haynes CM (1990). Analytical procedure results as substantive evidence. Proceedings of the 1990 Deloitte & Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems pp. 83-103.

 

Koonce L (1993). A cognitive characterization of audit analytical review. Auditing: J. Pract. Theory. (Supplement): 57-76.

 

Frederick DM (1991). Auditors' representation and retrieval of internal control knowledge. Account. Rev. pp. 240-258.

 

Libby R (1985). Availability and the generation of and retrieval of hypotheses in analytical review. J. Account. Res. (Autumn): 648-667.
Crossref

 

Libby R, Frederick D (1990). Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. J. Account. Res. pp. 348-367.
Crossref

 

Massey D, Thorne L (2006). The impact of task information feedback on ethical reasoning. Behav. Res. Account. 18:103-116.
Crossref

 

Moser DV (1989). The effects of output interference, availability, and accounting information on investors' predictive judgments. Account. Rev. pp. 433-448.

 

Mueller JM, Anderson JC (2002). Decision aids for generating analytical review alternatives: The impact of goal framing and audit-risk level. Behav. Res. Account. 14:157-177.
Crossref

 

Nickerson RS (1984). Retrieval inhibition from part-set cuing: A persisting enigma in memory research. Mem Cogn. 12(6):531-552.
Crossref

 

Pincus K (1989). The efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud. Account. Organ. Soc. (14):153-163.
Crossref

 

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) (2010). AU Section 329 Substantive Analytical Procedures. Washington, DC: PCAOB.

 

Purvis SEC (1987). The impact of documentation format on auditor's preliminary evaluation of internal accounting control. Working paper, Center for Accounting Research, University of Southern California.

 

Smith AD (1971). Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory. J. Verbal Learn. Behav. pp. 400-408.
Crossref

 

Smith J, Kida T (1991). Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychol. Bull. 109(3):472-489.
Crossref

 

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. J. Cogn. pp. 207-232.
Crossref