American Accounting Association - Current Issues in Auditing
AAA Digital Library

Current Issues in Auditing

Next Article
A Top-Down Approach to Identification and Documentation of Critical Accounting Application Controls
SUMMARY: PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 prescribes assessing internal controls over financial reporting using a “top-down” approach. This paper describes a method for documenting internal c...

You are logged in to this journal.

Descriptive Evidence from Audit Practice on SAS No. 99 Brainstorming Activities

Current Issues in Auditing 1 (1), A1 (2007);
doi: 10.2308/ciia.2007.1.1.A1

FULL TEXT OPTIONS   (FREE)
Download PDF (68 kB) View Cart
Jodi L. Bellovary and Karla M. Johnstone
Jodi L. Bellovary is a Ph.D. Candidate and Karla M. Johnstone is an Associate Professor, both at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
SUMMARY: This paper describes how auditors conduct brainstorming sessions to comply with the requirements of SAS No. 99. We gather evidence by interviewing 22 auditors at all personnel levels across seven audit firms (including all of the Big 4 firms) and by observing actual brainstorming sessions. The results reveal how auditors prepare for brainstorming sessions and allow us to describe a typical four-step brainstorming session process. We describe brainstorming group interactions and provide evidence on brainstorming session outcomes in terms of fraud risk assessments, audit plan modifications, and budget modifications. Finally, we report how audit firms encourage professional skepticism during brainstorming. ©2007 American Accounting Association
History: Submitted 5 April 2007; accepted 9 July 2007; published 1 October 2007
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/CIAXXX/v1/i1/pA1/s1

KEYWORDS

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
1936-1270 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef American Accounting Association

REFERENCES (18)
View in Separate Window/Tab
  1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1997. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82. New York, NY: AICPA.
  2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
  3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006. Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 109. New York, NY: AICPA.
  4. Asare, S., and A. Wright. 2004. The effectiveness of alternative risk assessment and program planning tools in a fraud setting. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (Summer): 325–352.
  5. Beasley, M., and J. Jenkins. 2003. A primer for brainstorming fraud risks. Journal of Accountancy 196 (December): 32–38.
  6. Brazel, J., T. Carpenter, and J. G. Jenkins . 2007. A field investigation of auditors' use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud. Working paper, North Carolina State University.
  7. Brown, H., K. Hurtt, and J. R. Joe . 2006. An examination of the effectiveness of brainstorming techniques in fraud risk analysis. Working paper, Boston College.
  8. Carpenter, T. 2007. Audit team brainstorming, fraud risk identification, and fraud risk assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99. The Accounting Review (October).
  9. .2007. The effect of fraud training programs on professional skepticism, fraud risk factor evaluation, and fraud risk assessment. Working paper, University of South Florida.
  10. Gibbins, M., and K. Jamal. 1993. Problem-centered research and knowledge-based theory in the professional accounting setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (July): 451–466.
  11. Lynch, A. 2004. Auditors' performance in computer-mediated fraud assessment brainstorming sessions: An investigation of the effects of anonymity and creativity training. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Florida.
  12. Marczewski, D., and M. Akers. 2005. CPAs' perceptions of the impact of SAS 99. The CPA Journal 75 (June): 38–40.
  13. McConnell, Jr., D., and G. Banks. 2003. Expanded guidance for auditor fraud detection responsibilities. The CPA Journal 73 (June): 26–33.
  14. Osborn, A. 1953. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York, NY: Scribner's.
  15. Payne, E., and R. Ramsay. 2005. Fraud risk assessments and auditors' professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal 20(3): 321–330.
  16. Ramos, M. 2003. Auditors' responsibility for fraud detection. Journal of Accountancy 195 (January): 28–36.
  17. Valacich, J., A. Dennis, and J. F. Nunamaker, Jr.. 1991. Electronic meeting support: The GroupSystems concept. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34: 261–282.
  18. Wilks, T., and M. Zimbelman. 2004. Decomposition of fraud-risk assessments and auditors' sensitivity to fraud cues. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (Fall): 719–745.
RSS Library Card Alerts