Improving Brainstorming by Improving Novice Auditors Performance in Brainstorming Sessions

• In Event: Breakfast with Research Roundtable Forum Session
  In Paper Session: Table 3

Abstract

In this study, we investigate whether or not a justification intervention improves the performance of novice auditors in face-to-face brainstorming sessions. In the baseline condition, participants will be provided with the case material and AICPA guidance on brainstorming. We implement the justification intervention by asking participants to refer to past experiences and current case information to provide potential fraud risks and then justify whether the fraud risks they identified are relevant to this case.

To our knowledge, there has been no research conducted examining the method in which novice auditors should prepare for the brainstorming session. As a result, this paper is one of the first to focus on a pre-brainstorming intervention that improves the performance of novice auditors within the brainstorming session. We are specifically interested in improving the performance of novice auditors during the brainstorming session without increasing auditor ineffectiveness. We measure effectiveness by the number and quality of fraud ideas generated and suggested improvements to the audit program. We measure efficiency as quality of fraud ideas generated. We evaluate audit ineffectiveness as an increase in the number of fraud ideas generated (changes to the audit program) in the moderate fraud risk scenario. Further, we focus on face-to-face brainstorming, versus brainstorming conducted electronically, because of the prevalence of face-to-face brainstorming in practice (Dennis and Johnstone 2016).
 

Authors

• Kelsey R Brasel, Ball State University

• Heather Carrasco, Texas Tech University

• Marcus M. Doxey, University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa

• Gary K Taylor, University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa