Auditors' memory for documented evidence

This study examines the relationships among auditors' evidence documentation mode, their memories for the documented evidence, and judgment. We find that prepared checklists are completed faster and require less time reviewing evidence, yet the risk assessments did not differ from those using written documentation. Those who used written documentation tended to include a higher proportion of positive fraud indicators. Memory measures, shows that documented items are correctly recognized significantly more often than undocumented items. We also find that the recognition rate for those using written documentation is significantly lower than for those using a checklist. Ex post analyses find that checklist users have better recognition of positive items and, as their memory for positive indicator increases, so does their perceived likelihood of fraud.