PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 15, 2026Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory0 citations

Regression Analysis in Auditing: A Comparison of Alternative Investigation Rules--Some Further Evidence.

View Full Paper
AWArlette C. WilsonGGG. William Glezen

Key Points

  • The aim is to compare the investigation rules from Kinney and Salamon using actual data versus simulated data.
  • Compared results from actual data with those reported by Kinney and Salamon using regression analysis.
  • Analyzed variability, assumption violations, and trends in the actual data.
  • Evaluated percentage of months investigated for Type I and Type II errors.
  • The actual data led to a higher percentage of months being investigated.
  • Increased Type I errors and decreased Type II errors were observed.
  • The effectiveness of Kinney and Salamon's decision rules was generally confirmed.

Abstract

Abstract Kinney and Salamon 1982 used simulated data to compare three investigation rules that auditors might use with regression analysis in analytical procedures. This paper presents a comparison of the Kinney and Salamon findings with results from using actual data. The actual data with its greater variability, regression assumption violations, and trends resulted in a greater percentage of months being investigated. The increase in percentage of months investigated produced more Type I errors and fewer Type II errors; however, the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the decision rules found by Kinney and Salamon were generally confirmed in this study.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wilson et al. (1989) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2f973ca1cfeec4908284a1https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-4682696
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper