Discussion of Achieved Audit Risk and the Audit Outcome Space.
评论了Kinney关于审计风险模型的论文，指出其未完整考虑审计结果空间和错误拒绝路径，并从贝叶斯视角提出不同观点。
Abstract In this article, the author presents his views about the paper "Achieved Audit Risk and the Audit Outcome Space," by William R. Kinney. The crucial difference in Kinney's paper is that the model is extended to formally recognize a sequential, conditional dependence of the extent of work at each stage on the results of the previous stages in the process. The author fears that Kinney has confused the issue by presenting the results in the context of incomplete audit outcome space specification and failure to recognize the paths leading to incorrect rejection. In that context, one could argue that some of his incorrect rejection paths are of limited practical relevance, particularly when a substantive test of details is employed. Kinney argues that one must reflect the entire audit outcome space in properly analyzing audit risk, but this is just a smokescreen for what is really happening. The author argues that his work shows something else, something that the author believes is deeper and more fundamental. Throughout his analysis of the situation, Kinney employs a sampling theory approach. He illustrates the various probabilities by relating them to frequencies of occurrence in a population of 1 ,000 audits. From the Bayesian perspective, probabilities would be interpreted as measures of the degree of belief in a certain proposition. Further, under this perspective, the auditor's assessment of inherent risk is the determination of prior probability of error.