Diagnostic Reasoning During Audit Judgment: An Alternative Cognitive Characterization

This study examines whether forward reasoning provides a more appropriate framework for describing audit judgment than backward reasoning. Identifying the appropriate framework is important for future research because forward and backward reasoning are influenced differently by task and knowledge variables. A forward-reasoning framework is presented and evaluated using results from published studies and data from a computerized process-tracing experiment. Findings suggest that auditors rely heavily on forward reasoning, which challenges the assumption that generating and testing hypotheses is the primary focus of diagnostic reasoning during audit judgment