IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bracre/v24y1992i2p119-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling audit risk

Author

Listed:
  • Skerratt, L.C.L.
  • Woodhead, A.

Abstract

A number of discrepancies have been found between the multiplicative joint risk model and the judgments of auditors in practice. The importance of this finding depends largely on the realism of the benchmark risk model used. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to extend the joint risk model to reflect more accurately the choices and circumstances faced by auditors. In addition, identifying the components of audit risk in a systematic manner is also important because it may be able to enhance audit decision processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Skerratt, L.C.L. & Woodhead, A., 1992. "Modelling audit risk," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bracre:v:24:y:1992:i:2:p:119-137
    DOI: 10.1016/S0890-8389(05)80003-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890838905800034
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/S0890-8389(05)80003-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shibano, T, 1990. "Assessing Audit Risk From Errors And Irregularities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 110-140.
    2. Kinney, Wr, 1975. "Decision-Theory Aspects Of Internal Control-System Design-Compliance And Substantive Tests," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13, pages 14-29.
    3. Peters, Jm, 1990. "A Cognitive Computational Model Of Risk Hypothesis Generation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 83-103.
    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. J. Reed Smith & Samuel L. Tiras & Sansakrit S. Vichitlekarn, 2000. "The Interaction between Internal Control Assessment and Substantive Testing in Audits for Fraud," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 327-356, June.
    2. Nadiah Amirah Nor Azhari & Suhaily Hasnan & Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi, 2020. "The Relationships Between Managerial Overconfidence, Audit Committee, CEO Duality and Audit Quality and Accounting Misstatements," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 11(3), pages 18-30, June.
    3. Karim Jamal, 2008. "Mandatory Audit of Financial Reporting: A Failed Strategy for Dealing with Fraud," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 97-110, May.
    4. Sezen Uludag, 2016. "The importance of control environment in an organization for an independent auditor to determine nature,timing, and extent of substantive tests: An application in Turkey," Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, Professor Dr. Usman Raja, vol. 2(6), pages 294-303.
    5. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    6. Appelgren, Leif, 2020. "A survey of models for determining optimal audit strategies," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    7. Ritchie, Bob & Khorwatt, Esamaddin, 2007. "The attitude of Libyan auditors to inherent control risk assessment," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 39-59.
    8. Paul Povel & Rajdeep Singh & Andrew Winton, 2007. "Booms, Busts, and Fraud," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 1219-1254.
    9. Georges Dionne & Florence Giuliano & Pierre Picard, 2009. "Optimal Auditing with Scoring: Theory and Application to Insurance Fraud," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 58-70, January.
    10. Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi & Paul D. Berger, 1986. "A test of the accuracy of probability assessment techniques in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 149-165, September.
    11. Arzhenovskiy S.V. & Bakhteev A.V. & Sinyavskaya T.G. & Hahonova N.N., 2019. "Audit Risk Assessment Model," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(Special 1), pages 74-85.
    12. Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi & Paul D. Berger, 1986. "Une expérience sur la précision des techniques d‘évaluation des probabilités en vérification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 166-183, September.
    13. Chiara Demartini & Sara Trucco, 2016. "Does Intellectual Capital Disclosure Matter for Audit Risk? Evidence from the UK and Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-19, August.
    14. Ilias G. Basioudis, 2007. "Auditor's Engagement Risk and Audit Fees: The Role of Audit Firm Alumni," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(9‐10), pages 1393-1422, November.
    15. Chia-Feng (Jeffrey) Yu, 2017. "Interactive Reporting Bias Surrounding CEO Turnover," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 239-282, April.
    16. David R. Finley, 1994. "Game Theoretic Analysis of Discovery Sampling for Internal Fraud Control Auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 91-114, June.
    17. Amelia A. Baldwin & Carol E. Brown & Brad S. Trinkle, 2006. "Opportunities for artificial intelligence development in the accounting domain: the case for auditing," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 77-86, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Cook, J. & Hatherly, D. & Nadeau, L. & Thomas, L. C., 1997. "Does cooperation in auditing matter? A comparison of a non-cooperative and a cooperative game model of auditing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 470-482, December.
    20. Braun, Robert L., 2000. "The effect of time pressure on auditor attention to qualitative aspects of misstatements indicative of potential fraudulent financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 243-259, April.

    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:eee:bracre:v:24:y:1992:i:2:p:119-137. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review .

    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.