IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v3y2014i2p191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Detecting Newcomb-Benford Digital Frequency Anomalies in the Audit Context: Suggested Chi2 Test Possibilities

Author

Listed:
  • Edward J. Lusk
  • Michael Halperin

Abstract

Digital Frequency Testing [DFT] has achieved justifiable currency as a valuable part of the panoply of the auditor. There are a number of inference models, such as the parametric test for proportional differences to entropic screening, that can be used to create information regarding the use of extended procedures to investigate the difference between the Observed digital frequency compared to the Expectation benchmark. One inferential model which seems ideal for DFT in the audit context is the Chi2 model as it is formed as the ratio of the square of the difference between the Observed and the Expectation benchmarked by the Expectation. This Chi2 ratio fits perfectly the usual audit investigation sensitivity imperative developed by the analytic procedures phase of the audit. However, there are Expectation Specification and Sample Size issues that need to be considered in using the Chi2 test in DFT. We present and illustrate in detail three testing models focusing on the Pearson and the Direct Benchmarking expectation differences with suggestions as to sample size control that could be used by the auditor in the certification audit. We offer important audit action information regarding the inference information that is related to the overall Chi2 test as well as to the Chi2 cell contribution signals. Finally, we have a Decision Support System [DSS] that aides in the creation of this Chi2 audit-screening information. The DSS, programmed in Excel-VBA, is available from the corresponding author as a free download without restriction to its use.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/4842/2826
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/4842
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tam Cho, Wendy K. & Gaines, Brian J., 2007. "Breaking the (Benford) Law: Statistical Fraud Detection in Campaign Finance," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 61, pages 218-223, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Y V Reddy & A Sebastin, 2012. "Entropic Analysis in Financial Forensics," The IUP Journal of Accounting Research and Audit Practices, IUP Publications, vol. 0(3), pages 42-57, 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. Qiuzi Fu & Sofia B. Villas-Boas & George Judge, 2019. "Does china income FSDs follow Benford? A comparison between Chinese income first significant digit distribution with Benford distribution," China Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 68-76, January.
    2. Dang, Canh Thien & Owens, Trudy, 2020. "Does transparency come at the cost of charitable services? Evidence from investigating British charities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 314-343.
    3. Lee, Joanne & Cho, Wendy K. Tam & Judge, George G., 2010. "Stigler's approach to recovering the distribution of first significant digits in natural data sets," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 82-88, January.
    4. Montag, Josef, 2017. "Identifying odometer fraud in used car market data," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 10-23.
    5. Wójcik, Michał Ryszard, 2014. "A characterization of Benford’s law through generalized scale-invariance," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 1-5.
    6. 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.
    7. Montag, Josef, 2015. "Identifying Odometer Fraud: Evidence from the Used Car Market in the Czech Republic," MPRA Paper 65182, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. 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.
    9. Jalan, Akanksha & Matkovskyy, Roman & Yarovaya, Larisa, 2021. "“Shiny” crypto assets: A systemic look at gold-backed cryptocurrencies during the COVID-19 pandemic," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Hao, Zhuang & Zhang, Xudong & Wang, Yuze, 2024. "Assessing the accuracy of self-reported health expenditure data: Evidence from two public surveys in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 356(C).
    11. Druică, Elena & Oancea, Bogdan & Vâlsan, Călin, 2018. "Benford's law and the limits of digit analysis," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 75-82.
    12. Morrow, John, 2014. "Benford's Law, families of distributions and a test basis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60364, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Mir, T.A., 2014. "The Benford law behavior of the religious activity data," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 408(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Wang, Delu & Chen, Fan & Mao, Jinqi & Liu, Nannan & Rong, Fangyu, 2022. "Are the official national data credible? Empirical evidence from statistics quality evaluation of China's coal and its downstream industries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    15. Rosa Abrantes-Metz & Sofia Villas-Boas & George Judge, 2011. "Tracking the Libor rate," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(10), pages 893-899.
    16. Gamermann, Daniel & Antunes, Felipe Leite, 2018. "Statistical analysis of Brazilian electoral campaigns via Benford’s law," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 496(C), pages 171-188.
    17. Lin, Fengyi & Wu, Sheng-Fu, 2014. "Comparison of cosmetic earnings management for the developed markets and emerging markets: Some empirical evidence from the United States and Taiwan," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 466-473.
    18. Shi, Jing & Ausloos, Marcel & Zhu, Tingting, 2018. "Benford’s law first significant digit and distribution distances for testing the reliability of financial reports in developing countries," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 492(C), pages 878-888.
    19. Etienne Harb & Nohade Nasrallah & Rim El Khoury & Khaled Hussainey, 2022. "Applying Benford’s Law to detect accounting data manipulation in the pre-and post-financial engineering periods: Evidence from Lebanon," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2022-10, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    20. Vadim S. Balashov & Yuxing Yan & Xiaodi Zhu, 2020. "Who Manipulates Data During Pandemics? Evidence from Newcomb-Benford Law," Papers 2007.14841, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2021.

    More about this item

    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:jfr:afr111:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:191. 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: Sciedu Press (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.