Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources

To assess fraud risk, auditors collect evidence in a sequential manner by reviewing workpaper documentation, and by collecting corroborating and clarifying information from financial (management) personnel and nonfinancial (operating) personnel. SAS 99 (AICPA, 2002) noted that audit evidence gathere...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Abell, Meghann Lynn
Other Authors: General Business, Accounting
Format: Others
Published: Virginia Tech 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27763
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172010-142409/
id ndltd-VTETD-oai-vtechworks.lib.vt.edu-10919-27763
record_format oai_dc
collection NDLTD
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Belief Adjustment Model
Auditing
Assessing Truthfulness
Fraud Risk
Experience
spellingShingle Belief Adjustment Model
Auditing
Assessing Truthfulness
Fraud Risk
Experience
Abell, Meghann Lynn
Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources
description To assess fraud risk, auditors collect evidence in a sequential manner by reviewing workpaper documentation, and by collecting corroborating and clarifying information from financial (management) personnel and nonfinancial (operating) personnel. SAS 99 (AICPA, 2002) noted that audit evidence gathered from financial personnel may be susceptible to deception. In addition, prior researchers have found auditors to be poor at detecting deception immediately following deceptive communication. Though the audit process is sequential and iterative, these studies measured auditors– ability to detect deception at a single point and did not provide corroborating evidence after the deceptive communication for auditors to revise their judgments. In this study, I examined auditors’ fraud risk assessments and truthfulness judgments throughout the audit process when there was an attempt at deception by management (financial) personnel. The belief adjustment model provided a framework to examine auditors’ initial judgments, their judgments directly following a deception attempt by financial personnel, and their judgments after receiving corroborating evidence from nonfinancial personnel. Sixty-four experienced auditors electronically completed one of four randomly assigned cases and, within each case, assessed the fraud risk, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and reliability of financial personnel at multiple points for a fictitious client. I manipulated the presence (absence) of fraud and the level of experience of the source of corroborating evidence (operating personnel). I hypothesized that auditors would not be able to differentially evaluate fraud risk and truthfulness judgments of financial personnel between the fraud and no fraud conditions when exposed to workpaper documentation and deceptive client inquiry evidence by management (financial personnel). However, I expected to find that auditors– would update their fraud risk and truthfulness judgments as they reviewed audit evidence from nonfinancial (operating) personnel. The results indicate that auditors in this study are not able to appropriately assess fraud risk and the truthfulness of financial personnel following the review of workpaper and client inquiry evidence. While the client was deceptive in the fraud condition only, auditors did not differentially assess the fraud risk and truthfulness of financial personnel between the fraud and no fraud conditions. After auditors reviewed evidence from nonfinancial personnel, in the presence of fraud, auditors increased their fraud risk and decreased their truthfulness judgments of financial personnel as inconsistent evidence was presented from a corroborating source. Therefore, in the presence of fraud, auditors improved the effectiveness of the audit process by appropriately increasing their fraud risk assessments in light of inconsistent audit evidence from nonfinancial (operating) personnel. Of equal importance, in the absence of fraud, auditors decreased their fraud risk assessments as consistent evidence was presented from a corroborating source. Therefore, auditors increased the efficiency of the audit process by appropriately decreasing their fraud risk assessments after integrating consistent audit evidence from nonfinancial personnel into their judgments. Further, I observed that these auditors revised their fraud risk assessments to a greater extent when audit evidence was provided by a source with a higher level of experience. Though prior research has found auditors to be poor at detecting deception, the results of this study indicate that auditors will increase or decrease their fraud risk assessments and truthfulness judgments based on the consistency of audit evidence gathered from a corroborating source. Therefore, in practice, auditors may be able to detect deception as the audit progresses. === Ph. D.
author2 General Business, Accounting
author_facet General Business, Accounting
Abell, Meghann Lynn
author Abell, Meghann Lynn
author_sort Abell, Meghann Lynn
title Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources
title_short Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources
title_full Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources
title_fullStr Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources
title_full_unstemmed Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources
title_sort assessing fraud risk, trustworthiness, reliability, and truthfulness: integrating audit evidence from multiple sources
publisher Virginia Tech
publishDate 2014
url http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27763
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172010-142409/
work_keys_str_mv AT abellmeghannlynn assessingfraudrisktrustworthinessreliabilityandtruthfulnessintegratingauditevidencefrommultiplesources
_version_ 1719352733942677504
spelling ndltd-VTETD-oai-vtechworks.lib.vt.edu-10919-277632020-10-23T06:29:48Z Assessing Fraud Risk, Trustworthiness, Reliability, and Truthfulness: Integrating Audit Evidence from Multiple Sources Abell, Meghann Lynn General Business, Accounting Bhattacharjee, Sudip Barkhi, Reza Salbador, Debra A. Burge, Penny L. Jenkins, James G. Belief Adjustment Model Auditing Assessing Truthfulness Fraud Risk Experience To assess fraud risk, auditors collect evidence in a sequential manner by reviewing workpaper documentation, and by collecting corroborating and clarifying information from financial (management) personnel and nonfinancial (operating) personnel. SAS 99 (AICPA, 2002) noted that audit evidence gathered from financial personnel may be susceptible to deception. In addition, prior researchers have found auditors to be poor at detecting deception immediately following deceptive communication. Though the audit process is sequential and iterative, these studies measured auditors– ability to detect deception at a single point and did not provide corroborating evidence after the deceptive communication for auditors to revise their judgments. In this study, I examined auditors’ fraud risk assessments and truthfulness judgments throughout the audit process when there was an attempt at deception by management (financial) personnel. The belief adjustment model provided a framework to examine auditors’ initial judgments, their judgments directly following a deception attempt by financial personnel, and their judgments after receiving corroborating evidence from nonfinancial personnel. Sixty-four experienced auditors electronically completed one of four randomly assigned cases and, within each case, assessed the fraud risk, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and reliability of financial personnel at multiple points for a fictitious client. I manipulated the presence (absence) of fraud and the level of experience of the source of corroborating evidence (operating personnel). I hypothesized that auditors would not be able to differentially evaluate fraud risk and truthfulness judgments of financial personnel between the fraud and no fraud conditions when exposed to workpaper documentation and deceptive client inquiry evidence by management (financial personnel). However, I expected to find that auditors– would update their fraud risk and truthfulness judgments as they reviewed audit evidence from nonfinancial (operating) personnel. The results indicate that auditors in this study are not able to appropriately assess fraud risk and the truthfulness of financial personnel following the review of workpaper and client inquiry evidence. While the client was deceptive in the fraud condition only, auditors did not differentially assess the fraud risk and truthfulness of financial personnel between the fraud and no fraud conditions. After auditors reviewed evidence from nonfinancial personnel, in the presence of fraud, auditors increased their fraud risk and decreased their truthfulness judgments of financial personnel as inconsistent evidence was presented from a corroborating source. Therefore, in the presence of fraud, auditors improved the effectiveness of the audit process by appropriately increasing their fraud risk assessments in light of inconsistent audit evidence from nonfinancial (operating) personnel. Of equal importance, in the absence of fraud, auditors decreased their fraud risk assessments as consistent evidence was presented from a corroborating source. Therefore, auditors increased the efficiency of the audit process by appropriately decreasing their fraud risk assessments after integrating consistent audit evidence from nonfinancial personnel into their judgments. Further, I observed that these auditors revised their fraud risk assessments to a greater extent when audit evidence was provided by a source with a higher level of experience. Though prior research has found auditors to be poor at detecting deception, the results of this study indicate that auditors will increase or decrease their fraud risk assessments and truthfulness judgments based on the consistency of audit evidence gathered from a corroborating source. Therefore, in practice, auditors may be able to detect deception as the audit progresses. Ph. D. 2014-03-14T20:12:10Z 2014-03-14T20:12:10Z 2010-05-05 2010-05-17 2012-04-06 2010-06-14 Dissertation etd-05172010-142409 http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27763 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172010-142409/ Abell_ML_D_2010.pdf In Copyright http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ application/pdf Virginia Tech