اثر تجربه و ارزیابی ریسک تقلب آشکار در کشف تقلب با روش های تحلیلی

This paper reports the results of an experiment that examined the effects of audit experience and explicit fraud risk assessment instructions on the effectiveness of analytical procedures in detecting financial statement fraud. The results of this study suggest that audit managers are more effective than audit seniors in assessing the risk of fraud with analytical procedures. Additionally, explicit fraud risk assessment instructions resulted in more effective assessments of the presence of fraud. These results have implications for the assignment of auditors to tasks and the structuring of these tasks.

This paper reports the results of an experiment that examined the effects of audit experience and explicit fraud risk assessment instructions on the effectiveness of analytical procedures in detecting financial statement fraud.1 The experimental materials used in this study include fraudulent financial statements issued by a public company and the subsequently restated and reissued financial statements of the same company. Audit seniors and managers applied analytical procedures to financial statements and assessed the risk of fraud. The subjects were divided into four groups, each of which received one of four combinations of financial statements and explicit fraud risk assessment instructions. The financial statements presented to the auditors were either fraudulent or fairly stated. One-half of the subjects received explicit instructions stating that the objective of their task was to assess the risk of financial statement fraud, while the remaining subjects did not receive such instructions. The results of this study suggest that audit managers are more effective than audit seniors in assessing the risk of fraud with analytical procedures. Additionally, explicit fraud risk assessment instructions resulted in more effective assessments of the presence of fraud. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section two develops the motivation and hypotheses for the study. The research design and results are presented in 3 and 4, respectively. Finally, Section five discusses the results and their potential implications for practice andresearch.

This study provides empirical tests of the effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment instructions on auditors' ability to use analytical procedures to effectively assess the risk of fraudulent financial reporting. Audit managers and seniors were asked to read either a fraud case or a no fraud case, perform an analytical procedures task, and provide fraud risk assessments. With respect to experience, audit managers were significantly more effective in assessing the risk of financial statement fraud with analytical procedures than were audit seniors, i.e. managers assessed the risk of fraud as high when fraud was present and low when fraud was not present. In contrast, the risk assessments of audit seniors did not differ significantly when fraud was or was not present. With respect to explicit fraud risk assessment instructions, the results indicate that auditors' fraud risk assessments are more effective when explicit fraud risk assessment instructions are present than when they are not present. Auditors with explicit instructions assessed the risk of fraud as high when fraud was present and low when fraud was not present. In contrast, auditors without explicit fraud risk assessment instructions did not assess the risk of fraud as significantly different in either the fraud condition or the no fraud condition. Finally, the combination of greater experience and explicit fraud risk assessment instructions resulted in the most effective fraud risk assessments. Audit managers with explicit fraud risk assessment instructions were significantly more effective in assessing the risk of fraud than were audit managers not receiving such instructions. All of the Big Five firms indicate that the fraud risk assessment required by SAS No. 82 must be performed or reviewed by the partner or manager. Future research might address differences in the effectiveness of fraud risk assessments which are actually performed rather than reviewed by managers and partners. Taken in total, the main finding of this study is that analytical procedures may be a useful audit technique for detecting fraud if it is performed by an auditor with adequate experience. The results of this study indicate that, on average, audit seniors are not effective in assessing the risk of fraud with analytical procedures. One potential reason for this ineffectiveness may be that seniors do not yet possess the requisite knowledge for the task of fraud detection. In addition, the current study adds to our understanding of the impact of SAS 82. Zimbelman (1997) examined the effects of SAS 82 on audit efficiency. His findings indicate that the new audit standard will increase auditors' attention toward fraud risk and will increase their audit effort. The current study suggests that explicit fraud risk assessments, such as those required by the SAS 82, are useful in enhancing auditors' effectiveness in assessing fraud. An important factor in detecting fraud is recognizing when the risk of fraud is high. Additionally, it is important for audit efficiency to accurately assess the risk of fraud. Explicit fraud risk assessments appear to trigger an auditor's relevant knowledge, thereby directing his/her attention to the appropriate information in the financial statements. This study has extended previous audit research which has found knowledge differences between experience levels of auditors (e.g. Christ, 1993 and Knapp, 1995) and identified that these differences affect the task of fraud risk assessment. The results of this study may have potentially important implications for both the assignment of auditors and the structuring of the task of analytical procedures for the purpose of fraud risk assessment.