FROM PERCEPTION TO EMPIRICAL ASSOCIATION: AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF FRAUD DETECTION EFFECTIVENESS USING FORENSICANALYTICS, INTERNAL CONTROLS, AND CONTINUOUS AUDITING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37591/njfpm.v9i2.2067Keywords:
Fraud detection forensic analytics internal controls continuous auditing empirical associationAbstract
The increasing complexity of financial transactions and the limitations of perception‑based fraud detection studies necessitate empirically grounded frameworks that move beyond subjective assessments. This study advances the literature by examining the associations among data‑driven forensic analytics (DDFA), internal control systems (ICS), continuous auditing (CA), and fraud detection effectiveness (FDE) using an integrated empirical assessment. An integrated model combining these three mechanisms is developed. A quantitative cross‑sectional research design is adopted, with primary data collected from finance and audit professionals across multiple sectors within a single national context (anonymised for review), yielding 120 valid responses (80% response rate). Data analysis employs SPSS, including descriptive statistics, reliability testing (Cronbach’s α), correlation analysis, and multiple regression modelling with comprehensive diagnostic validation (multicollinearity, residual independence, non‑response bias, and common method bias assessment using both Harman’s single‑factor and full collinearity VIF). Results indicate that all three components exhibit positive, statistically significant associations with FDE. DDFA shows the largest standardised coefficient (β = 0.41, p < 0.001), followed by ICS (β = 0.36, p < 0.001) and CA (β = 0.30, p < 0.001). The model explains approximately 65% of the variance in FDE (R²= 0.65, adjusted R² = 0.63). These findings are interpreted strictly as associational, not causal. The study contributes a coherent, empirically validated framework while addressing prior methodological criticisms related to inconsistent reporting and unsupported causal claims. The findings suggest that organisations prioritising analytical capability alongside governance and monitoring structures may achieve up to 65% improvement in explained detection effectiveness, highlighting the strategic value of integrated fraud detection systems.
References
- Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. C., Albrecht, C. O., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2019). Fraud examination (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
- Alles, M. G. (2015). Drivers of the use of continuous auditing in the public sector. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 19, 35–51.
- Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2017). An introduction to data analysis for auditors and accountants. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(4), 1–11.
- Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
- Bao, Y., Ke, B., Li, B., Yu, Y. J., & Zhang, J. (2020). Detecting accounting fraud in publicly traded U.S. firms using a machine learning approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 58(1), 199–235.
- Bierstaker, J. L., Brody, R. G., & Pacini, C. (2006). Accountants' perceptions regarding fraud detection and prevention methods. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(5), 520–535.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- COSO. (2013). Internal control — Integrated framework. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
- Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people's money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. The Free Press.
- Dechow, P. M., Ge, W., Larson, C. R., & Sloan, R. G. (2011). Predicting material accounting misstatements. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), 17–82.
- DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten‑year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
- Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance‑based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
- Hoberg, G., & Lewis, C. (2017). Do fraudulent firms produce abnormal disclosure? Journal of Corporate Finance, 43, 58–85.
- Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
- Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS‑SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e‑Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.
- Kogan, A., Sudit, E., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2010). Continuous auditing: A review and implications for future research. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 7(1), 1–19.
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw‑Hill.
- Perols, J. (2011). Financial statement fraud detection: An analysis of statistical and machine learning algorithms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 19–50.
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
- Vasarhelyi, M. A., Alles, M. G., & Williams, K. T. (2010). Continuous assurance for the now economy. Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 91–102.
- Wells, J. T. (2017). Corporate fraud handbook(5th ed.). Wiley.
