Evidential matter is acquired by auditors through observations, inquiries, confirmations, and documentation. Specifically, the information includes physical, documentary, mathematical, visual, oral, and analytical evidence. The purpose of this dissertation is to provide empirical evidence on the analysis and interpretation of types of audit evidence. The study relies upon psychological research into the manner in which informational attributes intervene in the judgment process to produce predictable biases in the interpretation of audit evidence. / The results of two experiments concerning auditor judgments as they relate to various facets of analytical review procedures (ARP's) are reported. Drawing from psychological theory and previous empirical evidence, a model is developed to predict differences in choice behavior of experienced auditors. During the planning phase of the audit, auditors use both vivid evidence (observations and discussions) and abstract data (analytical review). The first experiment examines auditor judgments concerning the planning time assigned to an audit across varying task conditions, including positive or negative information signals concerning analytical review results and auditor observations. This second experiment investigates differences in auditor perceptions during the substantive testing phase of the audit. The differences in interpretation of tests of detail (TD) versus ARP's is analyzed based on the assumption that TD provide causal information and ARP's provide predictive information. This second experiment also examines the potential differences which may exist in the framing of choices. Different formats of equivalent statistical information are given to subjects to determine if different responses result. / The results presented reveal no tendency to discount analytical review evidence over individuating data collected through observations. No support is found for a distinction between interpretation of statistical results of ARP's and TD. In addition, this study reveals that auditors do discriminate between reliability estimates and diagnosticity estimates but in the opposite direction than that implied by a normative prediction model. Further research is called for which improves on the theoretical and methodological considerations of this study. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 46-09, Section: A, page: 2742. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1985.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_75659 |
| Contributors | WELCH, JUDITH KAYE., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 96 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds