Auditors' evidence evaluation and aggregation using beliefs and probabilities

Authors:
Hironori Fukukawa;Theodore J. Mock
Affiliations:
Graduate School of Commerce and Management, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8601, Japan;Andersen Graduate School of Management, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, United States and University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Venue:
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Year:
2012

Citing 7
Cited 0

Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference

Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference
Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments

Management Science
Introduction

EWNLG '93 Selected papers from the Fourth European Workshop on Trends in Natural Language Generation, An Artificial Intelligence Perspective
A Comparison of Bayesian and Belief Function Reasoning

Information Systems Frontiers
Analytical formulas for risk assessment for a class of problems where risk depends on three interrelated variables

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model Under the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions

Journal of Management Information Systems
On the plausibility transformation method for translating belief function models to probability models

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper examines possible differences in auditors' performance when they make belief-based versus probability-based risk assessments by focusing on two phases of the financial statement audit process: the assessment of two attributes of audit evidence ('strength' and 'direction') and the aggregation of evidence. Based on an experiment in which 48 experienced auditors participated, three important findings were observed. First, there was no significant difference in the mean assessment of strength of evidence measured using the likelihood ratio. However, the difference in the assessed direction of evidence, that is whether the evidence is interpreted as being confirming or disconfirming, is significant for one of the cases examined. This result shows that auditors making belief-based assessments are able to assess the direction of the evidence more accurately than auditors making probability-based assessments. Third, the auditors' aggregation of evidence was not in accordance with 'AND' logic for either auditors making belief-based or probability-based assessments. These empirical results raise issues which need to be addressed in practice and in future research.