IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v13y1996i2p457-486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation

Author

Listed:
  • D. ERIC HIRST
  • LISA KOONCE

Abstract

. Analytical procedures have become an increasingly important part of financial statement auditing over the last 10 years. First recommended for audits by the Auditing Standards Board in 1978, analytical procedures are mandated for planning and overall review purposes by Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 56. In response to increased concerns about audit efficiency and effectiveness, analytical procedures are increasingly being used in place of and as a supplement to substantive tests of details. Despite their increased use, little is known about how analytical procedures are performed in practice. The purpose of this study is to describe how auditors perform analytical procedures at the planning, substantive testing, and overall review stages of the audit. To accomplish this, we conducted a series of interviews with 36 audit professionals at various levels of experience and responsibility (i.e., seniors, managers, and partners) representing all the U.S. Big Six accounting firms. The contributions of our study are threefold. First, by contributing to a more complete understanding of how analytical procedures are performed, we provide the basis for accounting researchers to identify current analytical procedure problems/issues and, thus, perform more relevant research. Second, we provide the Auditing Standards Board members with relevant information about current practice for their deliberations on revised guidance for analytical procedures. Third, we provide educators with a characterization of analytical procedures as performed in practice, thereby facilitating their classroom coverage of this important topic. Résumé. Depuis une dizaine d'années, les procédés analytiques jouent un rôle de plus en plus important dans la vérification des états financiers. D'abord recommandés en 1978 par l'Auditing Standards Board pour les vérifications, les procédés analytiques sont exigés par le Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) n° 56 pour la planification et l'examen global. Compte tenu des préoccupations accrues que soulèvent l'efficience et l'efficacité de la vérification, l'on fait de plus en plus appel aux procédés analytiques en remplacement et en complément des procédés de corroboration détaillés. Malgré cette utilisation croissante, le mode d'application concrète des procédés analytiques est peu connu. Les auteurs se sont donné pour but de décrire comment les vérificateurs appliquent les procédés analytiques aux étapes de planification, d'application des procédés de corroboration et d'examen global de la vérification. Pour y parvenir, ils ont procédé à une série d'entrevues avec 36 experts de la vérification possédant divers degrés d'expérience et assumant divers niveaux de responsabilités (premiers vérificateurs, chefs de groupe et associés), qui représentaient les six principaux cabinets d'experts comptables des États†Unis. L'étude contribue à l'avancement des connaissances de trois façons. Premièrement, en permettant de mieux comprendre comment les procédés analytiques sont appliqués, elle munit les chercheurs en comptabilité des éléments nécessaires au diagnostic des problèmes ou des questions actuellement soulevés par les procédés analytiques et, partant, à la réalisation de travaux de recherche plus pertinents. Deuxièmement, elle offre aux membres de l'Auditing Standards Board de l'information pertinente relative aux méthodes courantes afin d'alimenter les délibérations relatives à l'orientation à donner aux procédés analytiques. Troisièmement, elle munit les enseignants d'une définition des procédés analytiques tels qu'ils sont appliqués concrètement, ce qui facilitera l'étude de cette importante question en classe.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce, 1996. "Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 457-486, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:13:y:1996:i:2:p:457-486
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1996.tb00511.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1996.tb00511.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1996.tb00511.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaplan, Steven E. & Reckers, Philip M. J., 1989. "An examination of information search during initial audit planning," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 539-550, October.
    2. Cohen, J & Kida, T, 1989. "The Impact Of Analytical Review Results, Internal Control Reliability, And Experience On Auditors Use Of Analytical Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 263-276.
    3. Libby, R, 1985. "Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 648-667.
    4. Koonce, L & Anderson, U & Marchant, C, 1995. "Justification Of Decisions In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 369-384.
    5. Bryan K. Church & Arnold Schneider, 1993. "Auditors' Generation of Diagnostic Hypotheses in Response to a Superior's Suggestion: Interference Effects," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 333-350, September.
    6. W. Robert Knechel & William F. Messier, 1990. "Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 386-406, March.
    7. Kinney, Wr & Salamon, Gl, 1982. "Regression-Analysis In Auditing - A Comparison Of Alternative Investigation Rules," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 350-366.
    8. Gibbins, M, 1984. "Propositions About The Psychology Of Professional Judgment In Public Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 103-125.
    9. Bryan K. Church, 1991. "An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 513-534, March.
    10. Libby, R & Frederick, Dm, 1990. "Experience And The Ability To Explain Audit Findings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 348-367.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yoon, Kyunghee & Liu, Yue & Chiu, Tiffany & Vasarhelyi, Miklos A., 2021. "Design and evaluation of an advanced continuous data level auditing system: A three-layer structure," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    2. Janvrin, Diane & Mascha, Maureen Francis, 2014. "The financial close process: Implications for future research," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 381-399.
    3. Asare, S. K. & Wright, A., 1997. "Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(8), pages 737-755, November.
    4. Kimberly K. Moreno & Sudip Bhattacharjee & Duane M. Brandon, 2007. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Training Techniques on Analytical Procedures Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 983-1014, September.
    5. Joseph F. Brazel & Keith L. Jones & Mark F. Zimbelman, 2009. "Using Nonfinancial Measures to Assess Fraud Risk," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(5), pages 1135-1166, December.
    6. Ozili, Peterson K, 2018. "Advances and Issues in Fraud Research: A Commentary," MPRA Paper 84879, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Mayer, Maryse & Gendron, Yves, 2024. "“Fly alone, die alone”? The clan and the production of tax expertise," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3).
    8. Adam Esplin & Karim Jamal & Shyam Sunder, 2018. "Demand for and Assessment of Audit Quality in Private Companies," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 319-352, September.
    9. Jans, Mieke & Alles, Michael & Vasarhelyi, Miklos, 2013. "The case for process mining in auditing: Sources of value added and areas of application," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20.
    10. Anca Oana CHIȘ & Andra Maria ACHIM, 2014. "Professional Judgement. The Key To A Successful Audit," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 217-222, November.
    11. Jonathan H. Grenier, 2017. "Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 241-256, May.
    12. Hughes, Susan B. & Sander, James F. & Higgs, Scott D. & Cullinan, Charles P., 2009. "The impact of cultural environment on entry-level auditors’ abilities to perform analytical procedures," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 29-43.
    13. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.
    14. Chan, David Y. & Vasarhelyi, Miklos A., 2011. "Innovation and practice of continuous auditing," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 152-160.
    15. Lambert, Tamara A. & Jones, Keith L. & Brazel, Joseph F. & Showalter, D. Scott, 2017. "Audit time pressure and earnings quality: An examination of accelerated filings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 50-66.
    16. Yuan, Rongli & Cheng, Yingli & Ye, Kangtao, 2016. "Auditor Industry Specialization and Discretionary Accruals: The Role of Client Strategy," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 217-239.
    17. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    18. Hermanson, Dana R., 2015. "“Model 2”—A personal journey in pursuit of creativity and impact," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 130-140.
    19. Phuong Thi Nguyen, 2023. "The application of analytical procedures in Big Four audit firms in Vietnam ," GATR Journals afr229, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    20. Yang, Seunghee & Lee, Woo-Jong & Lim, Youngdeok & Yi, Cheong H., 2021. "Audit firm operating leverage and pricing strategy: Evidence from lowballing in audit industry," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    21. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    22. Saiewitz, Aaron & Kida, Thomas, 2018. "The effects of an auditor's communication mode and professional tone on client responses to audit inquiries," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 33-43.
    23. Krista Fiolleau & Kris Hoang & Karim Jamal & Shyam Sunder, 2013. "How Do Regulatory Reforms to Enhance Auditor Independence Work in Practice?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 864-890, September.

    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. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    2. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    3. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    4. Stanley F. Biggs & Theodore J. Mock & Roger Simnett, 1999. "Analytical Procedures: Promise, Problems and Implications for Practice," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 9(17), pages 42-52, March.
    5. Asare, S. K. & Wright, A., 1997. "Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(8), pages 737-755, November.
    6. Ismail, Zubaidah & Trotman, Ken T., 1995. "The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 345-357, July.
    7. Cindy Moeckel, 1991. "Two factors affecting an auditor's ability to integrate audit evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 270-292, September.
    8. Hung Chan, K. & Mo, Phyllis L. L., 1998. "Ownership effects on audit-detected error characteristics: An empirical study in an emerging economy," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 235-261.
    9. Nor Aishah Mohd Ali, 2018. "Challenges in Recruiting Specialized Internal Auditors: Case Study Evidence of Islamic Financial Institution in Malaysia," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 8(1), pages 60-74, January.
    10. Janne Chung & Gary Monroe, 1999. "The effects of counterexplanation and source of hypothesis on developing audit judgment," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 111-126.
    11. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    12. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    13. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    14. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    16. Carmen B. Ríos-Figueroa & Rogelio J. Cardona, 2013. "Does Experience Affect Auditors’ Professional Judgment? Evidence From Puerto Rico," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 5(2), pages 13-32.
    17. Soon‐Yeow Phang, 2020. "Impacts of the timing of the discovery of a subsequent event on the auditors’ approach to subsequent events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4121-4146, December.
    18. William F. Messier, Jr. & Vincent Owhoso & Carter Rakovski, 2008. "Can Audit Partners Predict Subordinates' Ability to Detect Errors?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1241-1264, December.
    19. Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    20. Choo, Freddie, 1996. "Auditors' knowledge content and judgment performance: A cognitive script approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 339-359, May.

    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:wly:coacre:v:13:y:1996:i:2:p:457-486. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.