A commentary on the comparison of Bayesian evaluation of audit evidence and intuitive evaluations by auditors, highlighting skepticism and commendation.
Presents a commentary on a study by John C. Corless which addressed how the Bayesian evaluation of audit evidence compares with the auditors' intuitive evaluations of the same evidence using prior distributions. Cases reviewed by auditors in the study; Skepticism on the conclusion of the study; Commendation for Corless.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bart H. Ward (1975) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: