Xiaoxing Li

Assistant Professor

Xiaoxing Li is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Accounting, Auditing and Law at the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH). Her research focuses on auditing, data analytics, and professional skepticism, examining how technology influences auditor judgment and decision-making. She recently published a paper in the Journal of Accounting Research titled “Inheriting Versus Developing Data Analytic Tests and Auditors’ Professional Skepticism,” co-authored with Joe Brazel, Anna Gold, and Justin Leiby. This study explores how auditors interact with data analytic tools and identifies strategies to improve audit performance when using externally developed tests.Xiaoxing earned her PhD in Accounting through the Foundation for Auditing Research program and has presented her work at leading international conferences. She teaches courses in auditing and accounting analytics at NHH and actively collaborates on projects that integrate behavioral research with technological innovation in auditing.

This study examines how the use of full population testing (FPT), enabled by data analytics, affects auditors’ professional skepticism. While FPT improves the sufficiency (quantity) of audit evidence by testing entire populations, it often relies on client-internal data, which may lack appropriateness (quality) and be vulnerable to management manipulation. Auditing standards emphasize that more evidence cannot compensate for poor quality, making external evidence critical for fraud detection.
The authors hypothesize that auditors using FPT may exhibit attribute substitution bias, substituting their judgment of evidence sufficiency for appropriateness. This bias could reduce skeptical actions when external evidence later reveals fraud red flags. In an experiment with 125 auditors, results show:
  • Auditors using FPT were 52% less likely to act skeptically (e.g., inquire about inconsistencies or alert managers) compared to those using sample testing when confronted with an external fraud indicator.
  • FPT inflates perceptions of evidence appropriateness because auditors perceive it as more sufficient.
  • Contrary to expectations, presenting FPT results visually (graphs) versus in tables did not significantly worsen the effect.
  • Experience with FPT amplifies the bias, meaning more experienced auditors are even less skeptical after using FPT.
The findings highlight a critical unintended consequence of advanced audit technologies: auditors may underreact to fraud risks when over-relying on internal evidence tested via FPT. Audit firms and regulators should address this through training and quality controls, emphasizing the distinction between evidence sufficiency and appropriateness and reinforcing the importance of external evidence.
The emergence of data analytics allows auditors to test entire populations of data drawn from clients’ information systems, rather than relying solely on sampling methods. While full population testing increases the sufficiency – or quantity – of evidence examined, it typically relies heavily on client-internal data. Therefore, auditors must remain skeptical when subsequent, more appropriate evidence from external sources contradicts a client’s financial reporting. In an experiment, we find that auditors using full population testing, compared to sample testing, are less likely to subsequently exercise skeptical actions when an external, industry growth trend reveals a fraud red flag. We do not find that this unintended consequence is exacerbated when full population testing results are visualized (versus tabulated), a typical format used for presenting data analytic tests in practice. Main Takeaways
  • Auditors using full population testing, compared to sample testing, are less likely to exercise skeptical actions when subsequently confronted with a fraud red flag revealed by an external industry growth trend.
  • Auditors using full population testing, compared to sample testing, overestimate their evaluation of the appropriateness of client-internal evidence. Presenting the testing results in a visualized compared to tabulated form does not exacerbate the negative effect of full population testing on auditors’ skeptical actions.
 

KEY TAKE-AWAYS

The emergence of data analytics allows auditors to test entire populations of data, rather than relying solely on sampling methods. While full population testing increases the sufficiency, or quantity, of evidence examined, it does not necessarily eliminate its lack of appropriateness, or quality. In particular, full population testing typically relies on client-internal data, which are vulnerable to management manipulation, potentially reducing their appropriateness. Therefore, auditors must remain skeptical when subsequent, more appropriate evidence from external sources contradicts a client’s financial reporting. We examine whether auditors employing full population testing mistakenly substitute their assessment of evidence sufficiency for their evaluation of evidence appropriateness, leading them to view client-internal evidence as more appropriate than auditors using sample testing. Consequently, auditors using full population testing may be less likely to act skeptically when subsequent, more appropriate external evidence reveals a fraud red flag. In an experiment, we find that auditors using full population testing, compared to sample testing, are less likely to exercise skeptical actions when a subsequent external industry growth trend reveals a fraud red flag. We also posit that this unintended consequence is exacerbated when full population testing results are visualized (versus tabulated). However, our findings do not support this prediction.

Audit firms around the globe have invested heavily in a variety of audit technologies. Of these technological developments, audit data analytics (ADA) are receiving increased attention because they enable auditors to incorporate more diverse data and visualizations into their testing (i.e., graphical representations such as charts, scatter diagrams, trend lines, or maps). The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) defines ADA as “the science and art of discovering and analyzing patterns, identifying anomalies, and extracting other useful information in data underlying or related to the subject matter of an audit through analysis, modeling, and visualization for the purpose of planning or performing the audit”. The current study focuses on ADA visualizations, which can aid auditors when scrutinizing audit evidence and ultimately improve audit quality.
Auditors’ use of audit data analytic (ADA) tests carries tremendous potential for the quality of financial statement audits and auditors’ application of professional skepticism (e.g., Austin, Carpenter, Christ, and Nielson 2021). As the use of ADA tests becomes increasingly established in practice, auditors will likely transition from developing ADA tests themselves to a situation where they typically inherit ADA tests developed by others. For example, auditors may inherit ADA tests that are developed by other members of their audit team or their firm’s centralized analytics team. In this study, we argue that inheriting ADA tests, as opposed to developing ADA tests by themselves, hinders auditors’ application of professional skepticism because inheriting decreases auditors’ psychological ownership of the tests. In an experiment where an ADA test identifies a fraud red flag, we find that auditors who inherited the ADA test are less skeptical than those who personally developed the ADA test. We further provide evidence that informing auditors who inherited the ADA test about the test development activities can substantially boost auditors’ skepticism levels. In practice, this development-related information could be conveyed via an ADA test development memorandum preceding the workpapers containing the ADA test. Informing auditors about ADA test development activities will likely become more important as auditors inherit more advanced forms of ADA tests, such as tests employing artificial intelligence technology.  
As the use of audit data analytic (ADA) tests matures and becomes increasingly common in practice, auditors will transition to a situation where they typically inherit ADA tests developed by others (e.g., other audit team members or a centralized data analytics team). Despite the potential benefits of ADA, using ADA tests inherited from others, rather than developed by auditors themselves, could hinder auditors’ application of professional skepticism due to their lack of psychological ownership of the ADA tests. In an experiment where an ADA test identifies a fraud red flag, we find that auditors who inherited the ADA test are less likely to exercise professional skepticism compared to those who were personally involved in the development of the ADA test. We then provide evidence that informing auditors who inherited the ADA test about the test development activities (e.g., a brief ADA memorandum documenting the ADA’s development) boosts their skepticism levels.  
This commemorative booklet marks the tenth anniversary of the Foundation for Auditing Research (FAR). It reflects on FAR’s journey as a unique platform where academic research and audit practice meet to advance audit quality. The publication highlights:
  • FAR’s Mission and Impact: How FAR evolved from an ambition into a reality, fostering collaboration between researchers and practitioners through access to real-world audit data.
  • Insights from Leadership: An interview with founding academic director Jan Bouwens and his successor Anna Gold on FAR’s achievements, challenges, and future priorities.
  • Research Highlights: Four featured studies on topics such as auditors’ commercial efforts, student expectations versus auditor experiences, data analytics and professional skepticism, and learning within audit teams.
  • Key Figures and Projects: An overview of FAR’s outputs, including practice notes, masterclasses, conferences, and a growing portfolio of research projects.
The booklet not only looks back with pride but also outlines ambitions for the future of strengthening knowledge transfer, increasing practical usability of research, and deepening engagement across audit firms and academia.
De Foundation for Auditing Research (FAR) viert haar tienjarig jubileum. Ter gelegenheid van deze bijzondere mijlpaal presenteren wij met trots deze jubileumpublicatie. In het afgelopen decennium is FAR uitgegroeid tot een uniek platform waar gedegen academisch onderzoek en de accountantspraktijk op een constructieve en waardevolle manier samenkomen. Wat FAR bijzonder maakt, is niet alleen de toegang tot rijke, praktijkgerichte auditdata, maar vooral de voortdurende dialoog tussen onderzoekers en accountants. Dit boekje laat zien hoe FAR deze samenwerking tot leven brengt. Het bevat een interview met de vertrek­kende academic director Jan Bouwens en zijn opvolger Anna Gold. Hun reflecties bieden zowel een persoon­lijke als institutionele kijk op de ontwikkeling van FAR in de afgelopen tien jaar en de koers die voor de toekomst is uitgezet. Het interview laat zien hoe FAR’s missie, het dichter bij elkaar brengen van wetenschap en praktijk, is uitgegroeid van een ambitie tot een alledaagse realiteit, en benadrukt tegelijkertijd waar nog verdere stappen gezet kunnen, en moeten, worden. Om de gemeenschappelijke basis tussen wetenschap en praktijk te illustreren, bevat dit boekje daarnaast vier projectbeschrijvingen. Elke beschrijving belicht kort een FAR-ge­relateerde studie, gevolgd door het perspectief van een onderzoeker en een reflectie van een praktijkprofes­sional. Deze bijdragen onderstrepen dat FAR-onderzoek een vorm van co-creatie is: niet over de praktijk, maar samen met de praktijk.
No related news.

Filter projects: 

Project Lead
Theme Filter
University Filter
1 - 10 of 52 projects