Toward a better expert system for auditor going concern opinions using Bayesian network inflation factors

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2017. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 132. The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. New York, NY: AICPA.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), 1988, The Auditor’s Consideration of an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern, Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS), No. 59

Arnedo, 2008, Going-concern uncertainties in pre-bankrupt audit reports: New evidence regarding discretionary accruals and wording ambiguity, Int. J. Audit., 12, 25, 10.1111/j.1099-1123.2008.00368.x

Arnold, 2004, Explanation provision and use in an intelligent decision aid. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finan. Manage.: Int. J., 12, 5

Arnold, 2004, Impact of intelligent decision aids on expert and novice decision-makers’ judgments, Account. Finance, 44, 1, 10.1111/j.1467-629x.2004.00099.x

Asare, 1992, The auditor's going-concern decision: Interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence, Account. Rev., 67, 379

Ashton, 2002, Eliminating recency with self-review: the case of auditors' ‘going concern’ judgments, J. Behav. Decis. Mak., 15, 221, 10.1002/bdm.412

Behn, 2001, Further evidence on the auditor's going-concern report: The influence of management plans, Audit. J. Pract. Theory, 20, 13, 10.2308/aud.2001.20.1.13

Carcello, 2011, Corporate governance research in accounting and auditing: Insights, practice implications and future research directions, Audit. J. Pract. Theory, 30, 1, 10.2308/ajpt-10112

Carson, 2013, Audit Reporting for Going-Concern Uncertainty: A Research Synthesis, Audit. J. Pract. Theory, 32, 353, 10.2308/ajpt-50324

Citron, 1992, The audit report undergoing concern uncertainties: an empirical analysis, Account. Bus. Res., 22, 337, 10.1080/00014788.1992.9729449

DeFond, M. L., J. R. Francis, and X. Hu. 2011. The Geography of SEC Enforcement and Auditor Reporting for Financially Distressed Clients. Working paper, University of Southern California, University of Missouri at Columbia, and University of Oregon.

DeFond, 2011, The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality, J. Account. Econ., 52, 21, 10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.03.002

DeFond, 2016, Do client characteristics really drive the Big N audit quality effect? New evidence from propensity score matching, Manag. Sci., 63, 3628, 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2528

DeFond, 2018, Awareness of SEC Enforcement and Auditor Reporting Decisions, Contemp. Account. Res., 35, 277, 10.1111/1911-3846.12352

Desai, 2017, A Study of the Relationship between a Going Concern Opinion and Its Financial Distress Metrics, J. Emerging Technol. Account., 14, 17, 10.2308/jeta-51933

Dye, 1993, Discussion: Limiting Auditors Liability, J. Econom. Manage. Strat., 2, 435, 10.1111/j.1430-9134.1993.00435.x

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2014. ASU 2014-15. Presentation of Financial Statements—Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40). Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Geiger, 2019

Geiger, 2006, Audit firm size and going-concern reporting accuracy, Account. Horiz., 20, 1, 10.2308/acch.2006.20.1.1

Geiger, 2006, Auditor decision-making in different litigation environments: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports and audit firm size, J. Account. Public Policy, 25, 332, 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2006.03.005

Hevner, 2004, Design science in information systems research, MIS Q., 28, 75, 10.2307/25148625

Hopwood, 1994, A reexamination of auditors versus model accuracy within the context of the going-concern opinion decision, Contemp. Account. Res., 10, 409, 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00400.x

LaSalle, 1996, Auditors’ views on the type of audit report issued to entities with going concern uncertainties, Account. Horiz., 10, 51

Lenard, 1995, The Application of Neural Networks and a Qualitative Response Model to the Auditor's Going Concern Uncertainty Decision, Decis. Sci., 26, 209, 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1995.tb01426.x

Lenard, 1998, The Design and Validation of a Hybrid Information System for the Auditor’s Going Concern Decision, J. Manag. Inf. Syst., 14, 219, 10.1080/07421222.1998.11518192

Lenard, 2001, Decision-making capabilities of a hybrid system applied to the auditor's going-concern assessment, Int. J. Intellig. Syst. Account., Finan. Manage., 10, 1, 10.1002/isaf.190

Lennox, 1999, The accuracy and incremental information content of audit reports in predicting bankruptcy, J. Bus. Financ. Acc., 26, 757, 10.1111/1468-5957.00274

Mălăescu, 2015, The effects of decision aid structural restrictiveness on cognitive load, perceived usefulness, and reuse intentions, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst., 17, 16, 10.1016/j.accinf.2014.02.001

Mascha, 2001, The effect of task complexity and expert system type on the acquisition of procedural knowledge: Some new evidence, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst., 2, 103, 10.1016/S1467-0895(01)00016-1

Mutchler, 1985, A multivariate analysis of the auditor's going-concern opinion decision, J. Account. Res., 23, 668, 10.2307/2490832

Nogler, 1995, The resolution of auditor going concern opinions, Audit. J. Pract. Theory, 14, 54

Nogler, 2004, Long-term effects of the going concern opinion, Manag. Audit. J., 19, 681, 10.1108/02686900410537793

Numan, W., and M. Willekens. 2011. Competitive Pressure, Audit Quality and Specialization. Working paper, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Public Company Auditing Standards Board (PCAOB). 2016. Auditing Standard 2415: Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. Available at https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS2415.

Reichelt, 2010, National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality, J. Account. Res., 48, 647, 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00363.x

Ricchiute, 1992, Working-paper order effects and auditors' going-concern decisions, Account. Rev., 67, 46

Ryu, 2007, The Auditor's Going-Concern Opinion Decision, Int. J. Bus. Econ., 6, 89

Seow, 2011, The effects of decision aid structural restrictiveness on decision-making outcomes, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst., 12, 40, 10.1016/j.accinf.2010.03.002

Shafer, 1976

Shenoy, P. P., and G. Shafer. 1988. An axiomatic framework for Bayesian and probability-function propagation. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. St. Paul, MN: AAAI Press, 307-14.

Srivastava, 2011, An Introduction to Evidential Reasoning for Decision Making under Uncertainty: Bayesian and Probability Functions Perspectives, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst., 12, 126, 10.1016/j.accinf.2010.12.003

Srivastava, 2012, Causal inference in auditing: A framework, Audit. J. Pract. Theory, 31, 177, 10.2308/ajpt-10293

Struhl, 2017, How Bayesian Networks Are Superior in Understanding Effects of Variables, KDNuggets.

Xu, 2013, Responses by Australian auditors to the global financial crisis, Account. Finance, 53, 301, 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2011.00459.x