SUMMARY: This research experimentally investigates how auditors make combined auditee risk judgments during the planning of the audit of an account balance in a client's financial statements. Experimental tests were performed of whether the predictions of the AICPA model of auditee risk determination are descriptive of auditors' judgments. In addition, tests were performed of other plausible descriptive models using the methods of psychological measurement. The results indicate that the AICPA model is not descriptive of auditors' judgments, and that auditors' judgments of combined auditee risk are best explained by the range model, a revised‐weight model, as compared to the alternative descriptive models tested. The results of the experiment extend the prior literature in this area by (1) facilitating the resolution of the conflicting conclusions from prior research regarding the descriptive validity of the audit‐risk model, and (2) by identifying the range model that describes an idiosyncratic, yet plausible, judgment strategy used by auditors in making combined auditee risk assessments. The prior literature did not test other descriptive models of combined auditee risk assessment. Implications for the theory and practice of combined auditee risk assessment are also discussed.
Experimental Tests of a Descriptive Theory of Combined Auditee Risk Assessment
Scott D. Vandervelde, Richard M. Tubbs, Albert Schepanski, William F. Messier; Experimental Tests of a Descriptive Theory of Combined Auditee Risk Assessment. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 1 November 2009; 28 (2): 145–169. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.145
Download citation file: