ScholarGate
アシスタント

手法を比較

選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。

監査における分析的手続×不正リスク評価×
分野会計学会計学
系統MCDMMCDM
提唱年19832002
提唱者American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
種類Audit procedure methodologyFraud risk assessment and audit procedure framework
原典American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2015). Analytical Procedures. AU-C Section 520. AICPA Professional Standards. link ↗American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2016). Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. AU-C Section 240. AICPA Professional Standards. link ↗
別名Analytical Review, Ratio Analysis, Trend AnalysisFraud Brainstorming, Fraud Risk Identification, Anti-Fraud Assessment
関連44
概要Analytical procedures are evaluations of financial information made by studying plausible relationships among both financial and non-financial data. Rather than testing individual transactions, auditors develop expectations about what numbers should be and compare them to actual results, investigating significant differences. This approach is both required during audit planning and is often more cost-effective than detailed transaction testing.Fraud Risk Assessment is a structured audit methodology required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for identifying and evaluating risks that financial statements could be materially misstated due to fraud. Unlike audit risk assessment focused on error, fraud assessment considers intentional deception by management or employees, incorporating fraud theory, the corporate environment, and specific fraud risk factors to design targeted audit procedures.
ScholarGateデータセット
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED

検索へ スライドをダウンロード

ScholarGate手法を比較: Analytical Procedures in Auditing · Fraud Risk Assessment. 2026-06-19に以下より取得 https://scholargate.app/ja/compare