|
Title: |
|
Authors:
|
|
Abstract: Analytical procedures are
widely used during audit planning to identify unexpected relationships, unusual
fluctuations, and other risk-relevant information, yet the literature
explaining how such information is evaluated and incorporated into auditors’
planning-stage professional judgment remains fragmented across research on
analytical procedures and research on auditor judgment and decision making.
This narrative review examines how risk signals arising from analytical
procedures are evaluated, weighted, and integrated by auditors when assessing
risks of material misstatement during audit planning. Using purposive and
snowball sampling, the review synthesizes literature spanning the 1970s to
2026. The synthesis organizes existing research through a review-specific
conceptual framework in which risk-relevant analytical results are evaluated as
signals, weighted and integrated with other information, examined through
diagnostic reasoning, and incorporated into evolving risk assessments through
belief updating; professional skepticism operates as a cross-cutting condition
affecting the quality of these processes. The review identifies three related
gaps: limited theoretical integration across these cognitive mechanisms,
insufficient empirical examination of the integrated process and its boundary
conditions, and uncertainty regarding the transferability of existing findings
across different institutional and technological audit environments. Its
principal conceptual contribution is therefore not the introduction of a new
standalone theory, but the organization and connection of previously separate
research streams into a common planning-stage explanatory account linking
analytical procedures, risk signals, and professional judgment. This synthesis
provides a basis for future empirical examination of the proposed relationships
and their boundary conditions, including in developing-country audit
environments. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51505/IJEBMR.2026.10905 |
|
PDF Download |