Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? T...
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, last edited September 10, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.01 Substantive Analytical Review – Effectiveness, 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.03 Adequacy of Evidence 
    759 Views
    Title:
    Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision
    Practical Implications:

    Analytical procedures are used frequently and increasingly are relied upon as substantive evidence. Based on this study, auditors are insensitive to the impreciseness of the analytical procedure when the results are favorable and may be a cause for over-reliance on weak evidence.  Performing a stronger, more precise analytical procedure caused participants in the favorable outcome situation to become more aware of the weakness of the initial procedure and re-evaluate their evidence strength rating. Further, evidence suggests that having auditors consider the possible weaknesses of an analytical procedure prior to performing the procedure will cause them to rate the strength of the evidence from a weak analytical procedure lower. Overall, this suggests a need to better train auditors in performing and interpreting analytical procedures.

    In a discussion of Glover et al.’s paper, McDaniel asks whether the findings may indicate that auditors in the unfavorable outcome (i.e. there is a material difference) are under-relying on the evidence rather than that auditors in the favorable outcome (no material difference) are over-relying on the evidence. Glover et al. respond that the over-relying of the evidence is of concern to regulators and the alternative does not explain all of the results.  McDaniel also notes that the case study was of a company in the financial industry but that the participants were not required to have any financial industry experience. Glover et al. note that the interest income item is the issue which is not specific to the industry or complicated.  McDaniel also notes concerns about a potential “anchoring” effect as the participants performed their analytical procedures based on prior year working paper results.  In response, Glover et al. discuss this feature of an audit. 

    Citation:

    Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, and T. J. Wilks. 2005.  Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  197-220.  

    McDaniel, L. 2005.  DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  221-228. 

    Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawlitt, and T. J. Wilks. 2005. REPLY TO DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  229-232.

    Keywords:
    outcome; evidence quality; substantive analytical procedures; evidence assessment;
    Purpose of the Study:

    In 2000, a Public Oversight Board panel viewed audit work papers and determined that 20% of the time substantive analytical procedures were weak and provided insufficient evidence to support the conclusion. This study aims to look at one of the possible reasons why auditors’ over-rely on weak, unreliable analytical procedures.  The authors hypothesize that auditors do not consider their existing knowledge about the quality of the procedure when the outcome indicates that the balance is “fairly stated.”

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors performed two experiments prior to 2005 where a material misstatement exists and a “weak, unreliable” (highly aggregated) analytical procedure is used.  In experiment 1, senior associates from one Big 4 accounting firm were asked to perform an interest revenue analytical procedure at the annual grand total level and compare the results to the client’s unaudited balance.  The balance is manipulated so that some participants’ results indicate there is no significant difference (i.e. favorable outcome) and the other participants’ results indicate that there is a significant difference (i.e. unfavorable outcome).  Participants evaluated the strength of the analytical procedure and concluded regarding a misstatement.  Additional disaggregated computations (interest revenue calculations broken down by type of loan and performed quarterly vs. annual basis) were then provided. Participants responded to the procedure strength of the aggregated analytical procedure.  In experiment 2, different senior associates from one Big 4 accounting firm were asked to document the weaknesses of the analytical procedure prior to performing the procedure.

    Findings:

    Experiment 1

    • Auditors attribute more evidential strength to the results of weak analytical procedures if the results indicate no material difference than the identical procedure where the results indicate a material difference.  In addition, auditors in the  avorable outcome are more likely to assign a lower risk of material misstatement and assess the balance as fairly stated, than those in the unfavorable outcome.
    •  After viewing the stronger, disaggregated analysis, auditors in the favorable outcome were more likely to revise their prior conclusion but auditors in the unfavorable outcome did not. Further, auditors in the favorable outcome were also more likely to downgrade their evidential strength assessment of the initial analytical procedure.
    • Altogether, the authors believe this indicates a potential for over-reliance on weak high level analytical procedures and that in situations where analytical procedures indicate no significant difference, auditors are less likely to realize their procedure may produce imprecise expectations and deem it to be a stronger procedure than it really is.

    Experiment 2

    • Auditors who were told to consider the potential weaknesses of the analytical procedure before performing the analysis were more likely to rate the strength of the evidence as lower than those who were not.
    • The prompt to consider potential weaknesses did not reduce the evidential strength assessment as much as requiring the additional analytical procedure in Experiment 1.
    Category:
    Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent, Auditor Judgment
    Sub-category:
    Adequacy of Evidence, Substantive Analytical Review – Effectiveness
    Home:
    home button