Abstract In this article the authors comment on the manuscript "Sampling for Integrated Audit Objectives--A Comment," written by Edward Blocher, published in the July 1978 issue of the journal "The Accounting Review." The three methods discussed in Blocher's paper are reasonable, but there are many other possible approaches, as discussed in the literature in psychology, statistics and measurements. The question of which is better can be settled only through actual experiments. Some of the extensions and refinements discussed in the paper may be useful and improve the overall effectiveness of auditors' sampling, provided that they do not cause serious difficulties in estimating a far greater set of parameters than that required under our original formulation. Needless to say, there is a trade-off between the complexity of a model and the ease of implementation in an actual situation. The issue stated in the fifth paragraph is of minor importance, but the authors wonder how much practicing auditors would agree with the author's statement, many auditors in practice may not make corrections if the aggregate effect of the errors is not material.
Ijiri et al. (Sat,) studied this question.