The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Decision Aid for Assessing the Likelihood of Fraudulent Financial Reporting
Abstract
The auditor's responsibility for detecting fraudulent financial reporting is of continuing importance to both the profession and society. The Auditing Standards Board has recently issued SAS No. 82, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, which makes the auditor's responsibility for the detection of material fraud more explicit without increasing the level of responsibility. Using a sample of 77 fraud engagements and 305 nonfraud engagements, we develop and test a logistic regression model that estimates the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting for an audit client, conditioned on the presence or absence of several fraud-risk factors. The significant risk factors included in the final model are: weak internal control environment, rapid company growth, inadequate or inconsistent relative profitability, management places undue emphasis on meeting earnings projections, management lied to the auditors or was overly evasive, the ownership status (public vs. private) of the entity, and an interaction term between a weak control environment and an aggressive management attitude toward financial reporting. The logistic model was significantly more accurate than practicing auditors in assessing risk for the 77 fraud observations. There was not a significant difference between model assessments and those of practicing auditors for the sample of nonfraud cases. These findings suggest that a relatively simple decision aid performs quite well in differentiating between fraud and nonfraud observations. Practitioners might consider using this model, or one developed using a similar procedure, in fulfilling the SAS No. 82 requirement to “assess the risk of material misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud.”
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,245
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
(2018) · The Grants Register 2018 · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-94186-5_84 · Cited by 1,504
The Financial and Market Effects of the SEC's Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases
Feroz, E. H., Park, K. J., & Pastena, V. S. (1991) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2491006 · Cited by 688
Auditor Litigation and Modified Reporting on Bankrupt Clients
Carcello, J. V., & Palmrose, Z.-V. (1994) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2491436 · Cited by 426
Self-citationThe efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud
Pincus, K. V. (1989) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(89)90039-1 · Cited by 210
Reliance on Decision Aids: An Examination of Auditors' Assessment of Management Fraud.
Eining, M. M., & Jones, D. R. (1997) · Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/ajpt-1302504 · Cited by 195
Cited by
Ngai, E. W. T., Hu, Y., Wong, Y. H., Chen, Y., & Sun, X. (2011) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.006 · Cited by 1,361
Data Mining techniques for the detection of fraudulent financial statements
KIRKOS, E., SPATHIS, C., & MANOLOPOULOS, Y. (2007) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.02.016 · Cited by 722
Intelligent financial fraud detection: A comprehensive review
West, J., & Bhattacharya, M. (2016) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.09.005 · Cited by 592
Detecting Accounting Fraud in Publicly Traded U.S. Firms Using a Machine Learning Approach
BAO, Y., KE, B., LI, B., YU, Y. J., & ZHANG, J. (2020) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12292 · Cited by 499
Issa, H., Sun, T., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2016) · Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting · doi:10.2308/jeta-10511 · Cited by 491
Metadata
- Authors
- Bell, T. B., & Carcello, J. V.
- Venue
- AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2000-03-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 169-184
- ISSN
- 0278-0380 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7991
- OpenAlex
- W2063269836
- Cited by
- 437
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 20.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Decision Aid for Assessing the Likelihood of Fraudulent Financial Reporting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/aud.2000.19.1.169
- The paper
- Bell, T. B., & Carcello, J. V. (2000). A Decision Aid for Assessing the Likelihood of Fraudulent Financial Reporting. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2000.19.1.169
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.