Journal Entry Complexity Measurement and Anomaly Detection

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Prof., Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Prof., Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computer Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Prof., Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/acctgrev.2024.379389.1008983

Abstract

Objective
According to the International Standards on Auditing (ISA), financial transaction complexity, an inherent fraud risk factor, stands among the criteria for selecting accounting journal entries to test, and implement analytical procedures for anomaly detection to assess fraud risk. However, the extant academic and professional literature lacks a structural definition of accounting journal entry complexity. This study aims to fill this gap by (1) proposing a novel quantitative measure of journal entry complexity and (2) applying it to anomaly detection techniques to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement.
Methods
Given the purpose of this study, the Design Science (DS) methodology (Hevner et al., 2004) was adopted. The DS includes two phases: artifact design and evaluation. In the design phase, a content analysis of ISA and a literature review of complexity and diversity were conducted to establish the basis for defining journal entry complexity. Subsequently, the proposed measure was adapted from diversity indices used in the biological sciences to meet the specific requirements of the research problem. This adjustment incorporated innovations from both exaptations and improvements in the contributions of DS. In the evaluation phase, descriptive and observational approaches were employed to assess and verify the novelty and utility of the proposed artifact.
Results
In the absence of an explicit definition of transaction complexity in auditing standards and guidelines, the content analysis of ISA led to the extraction of five conceptual dimensions of complexity: (1) the number and relationships of components, (2) the nature and form of transactions, (3) measurement and processing of information, (4) quantity and quality of knowledge, and (5) the degree of change and uncertainty regarding the subject matter. Based on the first dimension of this conceptualization and its adaptation to the theoretical foundations of diversity in biological sciences, the journal entry complexity measure was defined from a structural and data-driven perspective, as a function of the number and diversity of accounts involved. Next, by adapting the biodiversity index (Clarke & Warwick, 1998) and adopting the taxonomic distance measure based on the path length to determine account distances, a quantitative measure of journal entry complexity, as a design science artifact of the model type, was provided. The measure was then applied to detect global and contextual anomalies in journal entries. The implementation and evaluation phases continued through a case study using the Python programming language for analyzing journal entry complexity to identify global and size and pattern-based contextual anomalies in 2,895 journal entries of a manufacturing company. The results and insights obtained from applying the measure were then discussed and evaluated.
Conclusion
Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, this study applies theoretical foundations and biodiversity measurement methods from biological sciences to create a systematic and flexible mechanism for measuring the complexity of journal entries and identifying anomalies. It seeks to improve the identification and assessment of material misstatement risks in audit analytical procedures. Moreover, using this measure helps in planning and optimizing audit resource allocation by accounting for the complexity level of audit engagements. It also improves audit sampling and prioritizes auditing journal entries based on their complexity, as an inherent risk factor.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
References
ACFE. (2024). Occupational FRAUD 2024: A REPORT TO THE NATIONS. https://legacy.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2024/
Aftabi, S. Z., Ahmadi, A. & Farzi, S. (2023). Fraud detection in financial statements using data mining and GAN models. Expert Systems with Applications, 227.
Ågerfalk, P. J. & Karlsson, F. (2020). Artefactual and empirical contributions in information systems research. In European Journal of Information Systems, 29(2), 109–113. Taylor and Francis Ltd.
Ahmadi, Z., Salehi, M. & Rahmani, M. (2024). The effect of economic complexities and green economy on financial statements fraud. Journal of Financial Crime, 31(2), 267–286.
Alzamil, Z. S., Appelbaum, D., Glasgall, W., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2022). Applications of Data Analytics: Cluster Analysis of Not-forProfit Data. Journal of Information Systems, 35(3), 199–221.
Bedard, J. C. & Johnstone, K. M. (2004). Earnings manipulation risk, corporate governance risk, and auditors' planning and pricing decisions. The accounting review, 79(2), 277-304.
Bonner, S.E. (1994). A model of the effects of audit task complexity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(3), 213–234.
Bronson, S.N., Hogan, C.E., Johnson, M.F. & Ramesh, K. (2011). The unintended consequences of PCAOB auditing Standard Nos. 2 and 3 on the reliability of preliminary earnings releases. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(1-2), 95-114.
Bushee, B. J., Gow, I. D., & Taylor, D. J. (2018). Linguistic Complexity in Firm Disclosures: Obfuscation or Information? Journal of Accounting Research, 56(1), 85–121.
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Complexity. Retrieved July 14, 2024, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/complexity
Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of management review, 13(1), 40-52.
Chandola, V., Banerjee, A. & Kumar, V. (2009). Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 41(3), 1–58.
Chatjuthamard, P., Ongsakul, V. & Jiraporn, P. (2022). Corporate complexity, managerial myopia, and hostile takeover exposure: Evidence from textual analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 33, 100601.
Clarke, K. R. & Warwick, R. M. (1998). A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35(4), 523–531.
Debreceny, R. S. & Gray, G. L. (2010). Data mining journal entries for fraud detection: An exploratory study. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 11(3), 157–181.
Dilla, W. N., & Raschke, R. L. (2015). Data visualization for fraud detection: Practice implications and a call for future research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 16, 1–22.
Enflo, K. (2022). Measuring one-dimensional diversity. Inquiry (United Kingdom).
Faqih, M. & Fakhari, H. (2022). Calculating a Composite Index for Shareholders Protection. Accounting and Auditing Review, 29(4), 673-713. ‎(in Persian)‎
Geerts, G. L., Graham, L. E., Mauldin, E. G., McCarthy, W. E. & Richardson, V. J. (2013). Integrating information technology into accounting research and practice. In Accounting Horizons, 27(4), 815–840.
Gregor, S. & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS quarterly, 337-355.
Gregorius, H. R., & Gillet, E. M. (2008). Generalized Simpson-diversity. Ecological Modelling, 211(1–2), 90–96.
Gunning, R. (1952). The Technique of Clear Writing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Guo, H.K., Yu, X., Wilkin, C. (2022). A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Journal Entries: Accounting Graph Topology for Auditing and Fraud Detection. Journal of Information Systems, 36(2), 53–81.
Hartmann, M., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2023). Information overload research in accounting: a systematic review of the literature. Management Review Quarterly, 74, 1619–1667.
Hashemi golsefidi, A., Lashgari, Z., & Hajiha, Z. (2021). The application of machine learning model for detection of falsification of accounting. Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 10(37), 271-283. (in Persian)‎
Hashemi, S. A. & Hariri, A. (2017). The Analysis of Benford's Law Ability to Identify and Predict Financial Fraud Detection. Accounting and Auditing Review, 24(2), 283-302.
(in Persian)‎
Hawkins, D. M. (1980). Identification of Outliers. Springer Netherlands.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research 1. In Design Science in IS Research MIS Quarterly,  28(1).
Hodge, V. & Austin, J. (2004). A Survey of Outlier Detection Methodologies. Artificial Intelligence Review, 22(2), 85–126.
Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. (2018). Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL. The Accounting Review, 93(1), 259-287.
Humpherys, S. L., Moffitt, K. C., Burns, M. B., Burgoon, J. K. & Felix, W. F. (2011). Identification of fraudulent financial statements using linguistic credibility analysis. Decision Support Systems, 50(3), 585–594.
IAASB. (2021). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB).
Jost, L. (2006). Entropy and diversity. In Oikos, 113(2), 363–375.
Junge, K. (1994). Diversity of ideas about diversity measurement. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 16–26.
Kogan, A., Mayhew, B. W. & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2019). Audit data analytics research—an application of design science methodology. Accounting Horizons, 33(3), 69–73.
Lawrence, A. (2013). Individual investors and financial disclosure. Journal of accounting and economics, 56(1), 130-147.
Lee, H., Zhang, L., Liu, Q., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2022). Text Visual Analysis in Auditing: Data Analytics for Journal Entries Testing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100571
Lombardi, D. R. & Dull, R. B. (2016). The development of AudEx: An audit data assessment system. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 13(1), 37–52.
Loughran, T. & McDonald, B. (2023). Measuring firm complexity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1-28. doi:10.1017/S0022109023000716
Majidi, R., Khosravipour, N., & Akhondzadeh Noughabi, E. (2022). Application of Data Mining in Tax Processes Improvement: A Literature Review and Classification. Accounting and Auditing Review, 29(3), 519-545. (in Persian)‎
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. In Decision Support Systems (Vol. 15).
March, S. T., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Design Science in the Information Systems Discipline: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Design Science Research. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 725–730.
McDonald, D. G. & Dimmick, J. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of diversity. Communication Research, 30(1), 60–79.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (n.d.). Complex. Retrieved July 14, 2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complex
Moradi, A., asnaashari, H., Rohban, M. H., Arabmazar Yazdi, M., & SafarZade, M. (2024). Twenty-Five Years of Design Science Methodology in Accounting Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 21(81), 97-137.
(in Persian)‎
Nakase, R., Chou, C. C., Aoki, Y., Yoh, K. & Doi, K. (2021). Evaluating Hierarchical Diversity and Sustainability of Public Transport: From Metropolis to a Weak Transport Demand Area in Western Japan. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.667711
Nigrini, M. J. & Karstens, W. (2021). Using analytic geometry to quantify the period-to-period changes in an array of values. Managerial Auditing Journal, 36(1), 17–39.
Page, S. E. (2010). Diversity and Complexity. Princeton University Press.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2008). Final Report of the Advisory Committee on ‎Improvements to Financial Reporting to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. ‎
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. In The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.
Shekarkhah, J., Blue, G., & Abdi, H. (2023). A Model to Measure the Complexity of Readability of Accounting Explanatory Disclosures. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 14(1), 1-24. (in Persian)‎
Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163(4148), 688–688.
Steinmann, D. O. (1976). The effects of cognitive feedback and task complexity in multiple-cue probability learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 168-179.
Teachman, J. D. (1980). Analysis of Population Diversity Measures of Qualitative Variation. Sociological Methods & Research, 8(3), 341-362.
Tilman, D. (2001). Functional Diversity. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition) (pp. 587–596). Elsevier Inc.
Velden, M. van de, D’Enza, A. I., Markos, A., & Cavicchia, C. (2024). A general framework for implementing distances for categorical variables. Pattern Recognition, 153.
You, H. & Zhang, X. J. (2009). Financial reporting complexity and investor underreaction to 10-K information. Review of Accounting studies, 14, 559-586.
Zupan, M., Budimir, V., & Letinic, S. (2020). Journal entry anomaly detection model. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 27(4), 197–209.
Accounting and Auditing Review
Volume 31, Issue 3
2024
Pages 598-634

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics