Exploring expectation gap among independent auditors' points of view and university students about importance of fraud risk components

Document Type : Research Paper


Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Bojnord


The purpose of this study is exploring expectation gap among university students and auditors points of view about importance of fraud risk components. To get this purpose, university students' ideas and auditors about importance of each mentioned fraud risk components in Iranian auditing standard No. 24 under the title of "the auditor’s responsibilities relating to fraud in an audit of financial statements" is questioned. Data gathering tool in this study is questionnaire that its content and construct validity was confirmed. Test results have shown that auditors' points of view have significant difference in evaluating importance of fraud risk components with university students' opinions. The most important fraud risk components according to auditors and university students' points of view are "dependence of a main part of salaries and benefits of managers on operations results, financial statements, or cash flows" and "lack of supervision from management on important internal controls". Fraud components are classified into four groups according to their occurrence conditions: 1. management characteristics, 2. industry conditions, 3. operating characteristics including financial stability, and 4. misappropriation of asset. According to results obtained from test hypotheses, it was determined that the most important fraud risk components based on auditors' points of view is related to misappropriation of asset, but based on university students' point of view, fraud risk components related to management characteristics is more important than other three groups of fraud components.


Main Subjects

Article Title [فارسی]

بررسی شکاف مورد انتظار بین دیدگاه حسابرسان مستقل و جامعه دانشگاهی درباره اهمیت بسترهای خطر تقلب

Author [فارسی]

  • سعید بذرافشان
دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه بجنورد
Abstract [فارسی]

هدف این مطالعه بررسی شکاف مورد انتظار بین دیدگاه جامعه دانشگاهی و حسابرسان در رابطه با اهمیت بسترهای خطر تقلب می‌باشد. برای دستیابی به این هدف، نظر جامعه دانشگاهی و حسابرسان نسبت به اهمیت هر یک از بسترهای خطر تقلب ذکر شده در استاندارد حسابرسی شماره 24 ایران مورد سؤال قرار گرفت. ابزار جمع آوری اطلاعات در این تحقیق، پرسشنامه کتبی است که که اعتبار ساختاری و محتوایی آن به تایید رسیده است. نتایج آزمون نشان داد که دیدگاه حسابرسان نسبت به دیدگاه جامعه دانشگاهی تفاوت معنی‌داری در ارزیابی اهمیت بسترهای خطر تقلب دارد. مهمترین بستر خطر تقلب از دیدگاه حسابرسان و جامعه دانشگاهی به ترتیب "وابسته‌ بودن‌ بخش‌ عمده‌ای‌ از حقوق‌ و مزایای‌ مدیران‌ به‌ نتایج‌ عملیات‌، وضعیت‌ مالی‌ یا جریان‌ وجوه‌ نقد" و " عدم نظارت کافی مدیریت بر کنترلهای داخلی بااهمیت" می‌باشد. بسترهای تقلب بر اساس شرایط وقوع آنها در 4 گروه طبقه بندی گردید: 1- ویژگیهای‌ مدیریت‌،2- وضعیت‌ صنعت‌ ،3- ویژگیهای‌ عملیاتی‌ و ثبات‌ مالی و 4- سوء استفاده از دارایی‌ها. با توجه به نتایج حاصل از آزمون فرضیات مشخص شد مهمترین بسترهای تقلب از دیدگاه حسابرسان مربوط به گروه"سوء استفاده از دارایی‌ها" می‌باشند، اما از دیدگاه جامعه دانشگاهی بسترهای تقلب مربوط به گروه"ویژگیهای‌ مدیریت" از بسترهای تقلب 3 گروه دیگر اهمیت بیشتری دارند.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • تقلب
  • مولفه های خطر تقلب
  • حسابرسان
  • جامعه دانشگاهی
  • ایران
Abdul Majid Gul, F.A. & Tsui, J.S.L. (2001). “An Analysis of Hong Kong Auditors Perceptions of the Importance of Selected Red Flag Factors in Risk Assessment”. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 263-274.
Albrecht, W.S. & Romney, M.B. (1986). “Red-Flagging Management Fraud: A Validation”. Advances in Accounting, 3, 323-334.
Auditing Standard Setting Committee, (2014). Auditing Standards. Eighth Edition, Tehran, Auditing organization. (In Persian)
Bartlett, J.E., kotrlik, J.W. & C.C. Higgins. (2001). “Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research, Information Technology”. Learning and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50.
Chui, L. & Pike, B. (2013). “Auditors’ Responsibility for Fraud Detection: New Wine in Old Bottles?”. Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting, 5(1), 204-233.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1999). Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987-1997 An Analysis of U.S. Public Companies. New York, NY: COSO.
Dennis, F.D. (2009). “Auditing for Fraud or What does Fraud Look Like”. Middle Management Conference Nashville, TN. April 21.
Eining, M.M., Jones, D.R. & Loebbecke, J.K. (1997). “Reliance on Decision Aids: An Examination of Auditors' Assessment of Management Fraud”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 16(2), 1-19.
EL-Badry, M.A. (1956). “A Sampling Procedure for Mailed Questionnaires”. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 51(274), 209-227.
Gramling, A.A. & Mayers, P.M. (2003). “Internal Auditors Assessment of Fraud Warning Signs: Implications for External Auditor”. The CPA Journal, 73(6), 20-24.
Gullkvist, B. & A. Jokipii, (2013). “Perceived importance of red flags across fraud types”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 44-61.
Hackenbrack, K. (1992). “Implications of Seemingly Irrelevant Evidence in Audit Judgment”. Journal of Accounting Research, 30(1), 126-136.
Hansen, J.V., McDonald, J.B., Messier, W.F. & Bell, T.B. (1996). “A Generalized Qualitative Response Model and the Analysis of Management Fraud”. Management Science, 42(7), 1022-1032.
Loebbecke, J.K. & Willingham, J.J. (1988). “Review of SEC and Auditing Enforcement Releases”. Working Paper, University of Utah.
Loebbecke, J.K., Eining, M.M. & Willingham, J.J. (1989). “Auditors’ Experience with Material Irregularities: Frequency, Nature, and Detect ability”. Auditing, the Journal of Practice and Theory, 9(1), 1-28.
Ministry of Science, Research and Technology of Iran (2007). Course Selection Guide. No. 2. (In Persian)
Moyes, G.D., Lin, P., Landry, R.M. & H. Vicdan, (2006). “Internal Auditors Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Red Flags to Detect Fraudulent Financial Reporting”. Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy, 6(1), 1-28.
Moyes, G.D., (2007). “The Differences In Perceived Level of Fraud-Detecting Effectiveness of SAS No.99 Red Flags Between External and Internal Auditors”. Business & Economics Research, 5(6), 9-25.
Nieschwietz, R.J., Schultz, J.J. & Zimbelman, M.F. (2000). “Empirical Research on External Auditors’ Detection of Financial Statement Fraud”. Journal of Accounting Literature, 19, 190-246.
Petrascu D. (2013). Audit intern [Internal Audit]. Lucian Blaga University Press, Sibiu.
Petraşcu d. & Tieanu, A. (2014). “The Role of Internal Audit in Fraud Prevention and Detection”. Procedia Economics and Finance, 16, 489-497.
Pincus, K.Y. (1989). “The Efficacy of a Red Flags Questionnaire for Assessing the Possibility of Fraud”. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 14, 153-163.
Ponemon, L.A. (1993). “The influence of Ethical Reasoning on Auditors’ Perceptions of Management’s Competence and Integrity”. Advances in Accounting, 11, 1-29.
Riley, W.L. (2008). “Fraud: What’s it all about? Audit and Advisory Services”. eyond Liquidity: Modeling Frictions in Finance and Macroeconomics Conference,University of Chicago, January.
Sack, R.J. (1992). The Anatomy of a Fraud, as Quoted in Curriculum Innovation: Excellence in Audit Education. The Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association and Coopers & Lybrand Foundation.
Saksena, P. (2001). “The Relationship between Environmental Factors and Management Fraud: An Empirical Analysis”. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 11(1), 120-143.
Sheikh, M. (2004). A Survey of Important of Financial Fraud Warning Signs. PhD Dissertation, University of Tehran, Faculty of Management. (In Persian)
Stratmann, L. (2012). Fraudsters and Charlatans. History Press, Stroud, Gloucestershire, pp.7-9.
Vahidi Ellysseai, E. & Hamedian, H. (2010). “Iran Auditor’s Perceptions of the Effectivness of Red Flags to Detect Fraudulent Financial Reporting”. Accounting Research (Quarterly of the Iranian Accounting Association), 1(3), 162-197. (In Persian)
Wallace, W. A. (1995). Auditing (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing, An International Thomson Publishing Company.
Zimbelman, M.F. (1997). “The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors’ attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions”. Journal of Accounting Research, 35, (Supplement), 75-97.