ABSTRACT: The current study examines the outcomes of three fraud brainstorming procedures—nominal group, round robin, and open discussion—via a randomized between-participant field experiment involving 150 audit clients and 2,614 auditors who participated in natural, hierarchical audit teams. The results indicate that nominal group and round robin brainstorming resulted in equivalent numbers of unique fraud risks and comparable increases in planned audit hours, while open discussion brainstorming yielded the least number of unique ideas and the smallest increase in planned audit hours. Furthermore, nominal group and round robin brainstorming yielded more changes/additions to the nature and timing of substantive testing than open discussion brainstorming. Study findings offer theoretical and practical insight into fraud brainstorming.

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.