1991
DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1991.tb00829.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Auditor evaluation of loss contingencies*

Abstract: This paper exatiimes the probability judgments made by auditors for their tinancial statement lootnote disclosure decisions and their audit report additional paragraph decisions m the presence of material loss contingencies. In the United States these judgments are governed by SFAS No, S and SAS No, 58, Two prior studies ha\e reponed niconsistenl results pertaining lo the degree of compliance of auditors with the judgment and decision-making process implied by SR^S No ,'. In contrasi, S.^S No. 58 has not previ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Prior research in both psychology and accounting has investigated the numerical interpretation of various qualitative expressions and words. The most developed area of this research involved determining the numerical equivalents of probability phrases such as "likely," "probable," "remote," and "reasonably possible" (AICPA 2000;Amer et al 1994Amer et al , 1995Chesley 1986Chesley , 1979Harrison and Tomassini 1989;Jiambalvo and Wilner 1985;Raghunandan et al 1991;Reimers 1992;Schultz andReckers 1981, 1992). The focus of this prior work was primarily on determining the average numerical interpretation of the probability phrases.…”
Section: Prior Literature -Numerical Equivalentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior research in both psychology and accounting has investigated the numerical interpretation of various qualitative expressions and words. The most developed area of this research involved determining the numerical equivalents of probability phrases such as "likely," "probable," "remote," and "reasonably possible" (AICPA 2000;Amer et al 1994Amer et al , 1995Chesley 1986Chesley , 1979Harrison and Tomassini 1989;Jiambalvo and Wilner 1985;Raghunandan et al 1991;Reimers 1992;Schultz andReckers 1981, 1992). The focus of this prior work was primarily on determining the average numerical interpretation of the probability phrases.…”
Section: Prior Literature -Numerical Equivalentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…'reasonably possible', 'probable', 'remote') has also been examined (e.g. Schultz & Reckers, 1981;Jiambalvo & Witner, 1985;Harrison & Tomassini, 1989;Raghunandan et al, 1991;Reimers, 1992). In general, these studies show a low correspondence between auditors' interpretations of verbal probability terms and the associated numerical probabilities.…”
Section: Effective Communication Of the Levels Of Assurancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…5 deals with footnote disclosure of loss contingencies and is discussed later in this paper. 3 Jiambalvo and Wilner (1985), Harrison and Tomassini (1989), and Raghunandan, Grimlund, and Schepanski (1991) provide evidence about the correspondence between these verbal probability terms and numerical p-obability values. Interestingly, there is little variation in the average values reported in these three studies for the reasonably possible-probable threshold.…”
Section: Statistical Issuesmentioning
confidence: 98%