IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijefaa/v10y2018i6p47-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Full Range Testing of the Small Size Effect Bias for Benford Screening: A Note

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Bao
  • Frank Heilig
  • Chuo-Hsuan Lee
  • Edward Lusk

Abstract

Bao, Lee, Heilig, and Lusk (2018) have documented and illustrated the Small Sample Size bias in Benford Screening of datasets for Non-Conformity. However, their sampling plan tested only a few random sample-bundles from a core set of data that were clearly Conforming to the Benford first digit profile. We extended their study using the same core datasets and DSS, called the Newcomb Benford Decision Support Systems Profiler [NBDSSP], to create an expanded set of random samples from their core sample. Specifically, we took repeated random samples in blocks of 10 down to 5% from their core-set of data in increments of 5% and finished with a random sample of 1%, 0.5% & 20 thus creating 221 sample-bundles. This arm focuses on the False Positive Signaling Error [FPSE]¡ªi.e., believing that the sampled dataset is Non-Conforming when it, in fact, comes from a Conforming set of data. The second arm used the Hill Lottery dataset, argued and tested as Non-Conforming; we will use the same iteration model noted above to create a test of the False Negative Signaling Error [FNSE]¡ªi.e., if for the sampled datasets the NBDSSP fails to detect Non-Conformity¡ªto wit believing incorrectly that the dataset is Conforming. We find that there is a dramatic point in the sliding sampling scale at about 120 sampled points where the FPSE first appears¡ªi.e., where the state of nature: Conforming incorrectly is flagged as Non-Conforming. Further, we find it is very unlikely that the FNSE manifests itself for the Hill dataset. This demonstrated clearly that small datasets are indeed likely to create the FPSE, and there should be little concern that Hill-type of datasets will not be indicated as Non-Conforming. We offer a discussion of these results with implications for audits in the Big-Data context where the audit In-charge may find it necessary to partition the datasets of the client.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Bao & Frank Heilig & Chuo-Hsuan Lee & Edward Lusk, 2018. "Full Range Testing of the Small Size Effect Bias for Benford Screening: A Note," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(6), pages 47-52, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijefaa:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:47-52
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/view/75164
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/view/75164
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yan Bao & Chuo-Hsuan Lee & Frank Heilig & Edward J. Lusk, 2018. "Empirical Information on the Small Size Effect Bias Relative to the False Positive Rejection Error for Benford Test-Screening," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(2), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Frank Heilig & Edward J. Lusk, 2017. "A Robust Newcomb-Benford Account Screening Profiler: An Audit Decision Support System," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(3), pages 27-39, July.
    3. Edward J Lusk & Michael Halperin, 2014. "Using the Benford Datasets and the Reddy and Sebastin Results to Form an Audit Alert Screening Heuristic: An Appraisal," The IUP Journal of Accounting Research and Audit Practices, IUP Publications, vol. 0(3), pages 56-69, July.
    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. Edward J. Lusk & Michael Halperin, 2014. "Detecting Newcomb-Benford Digital Frequency Anomalies in the Audit Context: Suggested Chi2 Test Possibilities," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 3(2), pages 191-191, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    false positive & negative screening errors;

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:ijefaa:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:47-52. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.