Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation*

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 of 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.

[1]  William F. Messier,et al.  Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation* , 1990 .

[2]  Buck K.W. Pei,et al.  The Effects of Decision Consequences on Auditors' Reliance on Decision Aids in Audit Planning☆☆☆ , 1997 .

[3]  Theodore J. Mock,et al.  Analytical review procedures and processes in auditing , 1989 .

[4]  William R. Kinney,et al.  Regression Analysis in Auditing: A Comparison of Alternative Investigation Rules , 1982 .

[5]  Janet Colbert,et al.  An analysis of simple and rigorous decision models as analytical procedures , 1989 .

[6]  Donald V. Moser,et al.  The Impact of an Auditor's Initial Hypothesis on Subsequent Performance at Identifying Actual Errors* , 1995 .

[7]  Arnold Schneider,et al.  Auditors' Generation of Diagnostic Hypotheses in Response to a Superior's Suggestion: Interference Effects* , 1993 .

[8]  Thomas Kida,et al.  The Impact of Analytical Review Results, Internal Control Reliability, and Experience on Auditors' Use of Analytical Review , 1989 .

[9]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Made in Memory: Distortions in Recollection After Misleading Information , 1991 .

[10]  D. Hirst,et al.  Auditors Sensitivity To Source Reliability , 1994 .

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

[12]  Robert Libby,et al.  Experience And The Ability To Explain Audit Findings , 1990 .

[13]  Steven E. Kaplan,et al.  An examination of information search during initial audit planning , 1989 .

[14]  G. Marchant,et al.  Justification Of Decisions In Auditing , 1995 .

[15]  D. Eric Hirst,et al.  Auditor Sensitivity to Earnings Management , 1994 .

[16]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING , 1984 .

[17]  Robert Libby,et al.  Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review , 1985 .

[18]  Bryan K. Church.  An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence* , 1991 .

[19]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial , 1992 .

[20]  Mark E. Peecher.  The Influence of Auditors' Justification Processes on Their Decisions: A Cognitive Model and Experimental Evidence , 1996 .