The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Belief Based Audit Procedures

  • Maximilian K. P. Jung
  • Herwig E. Fink
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 88)


A series of simulation experiments has been carried out in order to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of three different approaches for determining audit risk in complex audit situations. The first approach uses probability theory and the audit risk model to combine two different items of audit evidence from analytical procedures and tests of details. The second approach is based on the belief function framework and uses the Dempster-Shafer rule for combining the two items of evidence. In the third approach, information from analytical procedures is neglected and audit risk is simply determined by tests of details. The results indicate that the belief based audit is always more efficient than a simple one and can be less efficient than the traditional approach. With respect to audit effectiveness, the belief based approach turns out to be best. Furthermore, the results show that the belief based audit is more robust when there are small failures in interpreting information provided by analytical procedures.


Belief Function Analytical Review Monthly Sale Audit Opinion Audit Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    AICPA (1973) Statement on Auditing Procedures No. 54: The Auditor’s Study and Evaluation of Internal Control. Journal of Accountancy. 135, March, 56–71Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    AICPA (1981) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 39: Audit Sampling. Journal of Accountancy. 152, August, 106–110Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    AICPA (1984) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47: Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. Journal of Accountancy. 157, February, 143–146Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arens A. A., Loebbecke J. K. (1996) Auditing an Integrated Approach. 7 th edition. Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, Y., Leitch R. A. (1998) The Error Detection of Structural Analytical Procedures: A Simulation Study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. 17, 36–70Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CICA (1980) The Extent of Audit Testing. A Research Study, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dutta S.K. (1991) Evidence Aggregation for Planning and Evaluation of Audit: A Theoretical Study. University of KansasGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliott R. K., Rogers J. R. (1972) Relating Statistical Sampling to Audit Objectives. Journal of Accountancy. 134, July, 46–55Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grimlund R. A., Felix W. L. (1987) Simulation Evidence and Analysis of Alternative Methods of Evaluation Dollar-Unit Samples. Accounting Review. 62, 455–479Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Houghton C. W., Fogarty J. A. (1991) Inherent Risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. 10, 1–21Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knechel R. W. (1988) The Effectiveness of Statistical Analytical Review as a Substantive Audit proCedure: A Simulation Analysis. Accounting Review. 63, 74–95Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lapin L. L. (1987) Statistics for Modern Business Decisions. 4th edition. San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mandl G., Jung M. (1997) Effizienz und Effektivität statistischer Stichproben-verfahren. Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung and Praxis. 229–243Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neter J., Loebbecke J. K. (1975) Behavior of Major Statistical Estimators in Sampling Accounting Populations. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reneau J. H. (1978) CAV Bounds in Dollar-Unit Sampling: Some Simulation Results. Accounting Review. 53, 669–680Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shafer G. (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shafer G., Srivatava R. (1990) The Bayesian and Belief-Function Formalisms: A General Perspective for Auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. 9, Supplement, 110–137Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srivastava R. P. (1993) Belief Functions and Audit Decisions. The Auditors Report. 17, 8–12Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Srivastava R. P. (1997) The Belief Functions Approach to Aggregating Audit ional Jounal of Intelligent Systems. 10, 329–356Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srivastava R. P. (1997) Audit Decisions Using Belief Functions: A Review. Control and Cybernetics. 26, 135–160Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Srivastava R.. P., Dutta S. K., Johns R. W. (1996) An Expert System Approach to Audit Planning and Evaluation in the Belief-Function Framework. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management. 5, 165–185Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Srivastava R. P., Shafer G. R. (1992) Belief-Function Formulas for Audit Risk. Accounting Review. 67, 249–283Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Srivastava R. P., Shafer G. R. (1994) Integrating Statistical and Nonstatistical Audit Evidence Using Belief Functions: A Case of Variable Sampling. International Jounal of Intelligent Systems. 9, 519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stringer K. W., Stewart T. R. (1996) Statistical Techniques for Analytical Review in Auditing. rd edition. New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian K. P. Jung
    • 1
  • Herwig E. Fink
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Accounting and AuditingUniversity of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations