Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study explores the evaluation of sampling techniques in audit engagements, aiming to provide insights into the factors influencing auditors' decisions and the effectiveness of different sampling methods. The research adopts a qualitative approach, conducting a comprehensive literature review to identify key themes and discussions surrounding sampling techniques in auditing. Factors such as population characteristics, audit objectives, resource constraints, audit complexity, regulatory requirements, and technological advancements are analyzed to understand their impact on sampling decisions. Through thematic analysis, the study identifies emerging themes, including the effectiveness of sampling techniques, factors influencing sampling decisions, and the role of technological advancements in audit sampling. Findings suggest that while traditional sampling methods like random sampling and systematic sampling remain prevalent, innovative approaches such as statistical sampling and probability-proportional-to-size sampling offer enhanced precision and reliability, particularly in complex audit environments. The integration of technology, particularly data analytics tools and audit software, has revolutionized audit sampling practices, enabling auditors to conduct more comprehensive and efficient sampling procedures. Overall, the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on sampling techniques in auditing and provides practical implications for audit practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.

Keywords

Audit Sampling Qualitative Research Sampling Techniques Audit Methodology Technological Advancements

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Santoso, F., Wulandari, I. ., & Pratiwi, D. . (2023). Evaluation of Sampling Techniques in Audit: A Qualitative Approach. Golden Ratio of Auditing Research, 3(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.52970/grar.v3i1.373
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Alles, M., Kogan, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2014). Big data in accounting: An overview. Accounting Horizons, 28(2), 447-456. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50670
  2. Asare, S. K., & Wright, A. M. (2012). The effect of task complexity on audit sampling risk assessments and sample size decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(1), 125-148. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50176
  3. Bierstaker, J. L., Brody, R. G., & Pacini, C. (2012). Understanding auditors' statistical sampling decisions: Implications for research and practice. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(3), 31-52. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50161
  4. Durney, M. (2013). Auditor performance and error rates in the post-SOX era: A comparative study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50503
  5. Eilifsen, A., Knechel, W. R., & Wallage, P. (2017). Auditing and assurance services. Routledge.
  6. Gillett, A. (2011). Perception of evidence strength when using fixed sampling plans in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(3), 695-717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00409.x
  7. Gramling, A. A., Maletta, M. J., Schneider, A., & Church, B. K. (2014). The effect of an interactive decision aid on auditors' planning judgments under conditions of low and high fraud risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50558
  8. Kaplan, A. (1973). Methodological perspectives on audit sampling. The Accounting Review, 48(4), 694-702. https://doi.org/10.2307/245150
  9. Kinney, W. (1975). Decision analysis in the sampling problem: A bridge between classical statistics and the behavioral sciences. The Accounting Review, 50(4), 744-766. https://doi.org/10.2307/245231
  10. Kirkos, E. (2007). Identifying auditors' opinions using data mining techniques: An empirical analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 179(3), 948-964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.05.015
  11. Knight, M. (1979). Statistical sampling in auditing: An overview and practical challenges. Journal of Accountancy, 147(2), 83-90.
  12. Libby, R., & Luft, J. (2015). Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 44, 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.03.003
  13. Mak, Y. T., Simnett, R., & Yu, W. (2013). The effect of sampling risk and its mitigation on auditor judgments: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(Supplement 1), 255-279. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50326
  14. Mak, Y. T., Simnett, R., & Yu, W. (2013). The effect of sampling risk and its mitigation on auditor judgments: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(Supplement 1), 255-279. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50326
  15. Meleshenko, A. (2014). A model for assessing the quality of audit sampling. International Journal of Auditing, 18(3), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12021
  16. Power, M. (1992). Historical perspectives on the development and application of audit sampling. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90031-B
  17. Rejda, G. E., & McNamara, M. J. (2019). Principles of risk management and insurance (14th ed.). Pearson.