THE EFFECTS OF PRESENTATION FORMAT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF AUDITORS‘ ANALYTICAL REVIEW JUDGMENTS

Modern audit practice has focused increasing attention on the use of analytical review procedures to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of audits. To assist in this endeavour, one branch of analytical review research has investigated the judgment processes that auditors' use in analytical review and the development of decision aids to improve these processes. Several recent papers have considered how alternative presentations of financial and operating data, specifically graphs versus tables, may affect the effectiveness of auditors' analytical review judgments. However, the results have been mixed. This study investigated the expectation that there would be effectiveness and efficiency performance advantages for auditors receiving graphically presented data over those receiving tabular presented data in an analytical review setting. This paper reports on the results of an experiment that examined the impact of graphs versus tables on the effectiveness of sales account balance prediction, confidence in this prediction and the setting of a noninvestigation region, and the relative time efficiency with which these tasks were completed, for an analytical review of sales for a retailing client. The study found mixed results for the accuracy of the sales account balance predictions of the graphical and tabular treatment groups, with no difference found when a regression model estimate of the ‘correct’ prediction was used and greater accuracy for the graphical group when the actual audited sales account balance was used as the accuracy benchmark. No significant differences between treatment groups was found for their confidence in their sales account balance predictions and the width of the noninvestigation regions set. However, a significant time advantage was found for the graphical group. These findings suggest that there may a useful role for the use of graphs as decision aids in income statement related analytical review procedures in improving audit efficiency without sacrificing audit effectiveness.

[1]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Graphical presentation of accounting data for financial forecasting: An experimental investigation , 1989 .

[2]  Richard W. Scamell,et al.  An Examination of Two Screen/Report Design Variables in an Information Recall Context* , 1990 .

[3]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  COMPUTER GRAPHICS AS DECISION AIDS: DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH* , 1984 .

[4]  William Remus,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Graphical and Tabular Data Presentations on Decision Making , 1984 .

[5]  W. Waller,et al.  The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures , 1984 .

[6]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  The Impact of the Mode of Information Presentation on Learning and Performance , 1980 .

[7]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Graphics and managerial decision making: research-based guidelines , 1988, CACM.

[8]  Larry R. Davis,et al.  Report format and the decision maker's task: An experimental investigation , 1989 .

[9]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[10]  Shane Moriarity,et al.  Communicating Financial Information Through Multidimensional Graphics , 1979 .

[11]  James R. Coakley.  Analytical review : a comparison of procedures and techniques used in auditing , 1982 .

[12]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Report format and task complexity: Interaction in risk judgments , 1986 .

[13]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Graphical and Color-Enhanced Information Presentation , 1985 .

[14]  Hirotaka Takeuchi,et al.  New Promise of Computer Graphics , 1980 .

[15]  William Remus,et al.  A Study of Graphical and Tabular Displays and Their Interaction with Environmental Complexity , 1987 .

[16]  Barry L. Lewis,et al.  Determinants of Auditor Expertise , 1990 .

[17]  L. Carter,et al.  An experiment on the design of tables and graphs used for presenting numerical data. , 1947, The Journal of applied psychology.