Audit Team Brainstorming, Fraud Risk Identification, and Fraud Risk Assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99

By Tina D Carpenter. 2007

194 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Information Systems and Management, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3b37aed8d3810b0c03a576f98db4b656e162740d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. Johnette Hassell
2. John R. Kuhn Jr.
3. Eric N. Johnson
4. Barbara Apostolou
5. Jacqueline S. Hammersley

In Information Systems and Management

1. Jacqueline S. Hammersley

In Safety Research

1. Jacqueline S. Hammersley

Citations in the corpus

• A Review and Model of Auditor Judgments in Fraud-Related Planning Tasks (2011, background): “Finally, interacting groups assess fraud risk higher than nominal groups or individuals (Carpenter 2007; Lynch et al. 2009), although Trotman et al. (2009) report no difference in risk assessments among interacting groups despite superior fraud hypothesis generation by the two groups that received…”
• Auditor Perceptions of Client Narcissism as a Fraud Attitude Risk Factor (2013, background): “We focused 9 Carpenter (2007) included manager-, senior-, and staff-level auditors from the Big 4 firms in her study of audit team fraud risk “brainstorming.””
• Fifty-Year Overview of Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting (2011, unknown): “Carpenter (2007) compares nominal groups (combinations of individuals who have not met face to face) and interacting groups on a brainstorming task and finds that face-to-face brainstorming does not increase the quantity of frauds listed but does increase the quality of the items listed. Trotman et ”