This study examines whether auditors can effectively use nonfinancial measures (NFMs) to assess the reasonableness of financial performance and, thereby, help detect financial statement fraud (hereafter, fraud). If auditors or other interested parties (e.g., directors, lenders, investors, or regulators) can identify NFMs (e.g., facilities growth) that are correlated with financial measures (e.g., revenue growth), inconsistent patterns between the NFMs and financial measures can be used to detect firms with high fraud risk. We find that the difference between financial and nonfinancial performance is significantly greater for firms that committed fraud than for their nonfraud competitors. We also find that this difference is a significant fraud indicator when included in a model containing variables that have previously been linked to the likelihood of fraud. Overall, our results provide empirical evidence suggesting that NFMs can be effectively used to assess fraud risk.

As the use of audit data analytic tests (ADA) becomes increasingly established in practice, auditors will often confront situations in which they inherit ADA developed by others, as opposed to developing the ADA themselves. Despite the potential benefits of ADA, inheriting ADA could decrease auditors’ skeptical actions by diminishing their psychological ownership of the ADA. In an experiment where an ADA identifies a fraud red flag, we find that auditors who inherited the ADA are less likely to exercise skeptical actions than those who were personally involved in its development. We then provide evidence that informing auditors who inherit an ADA about the test development activities (e.g., a brief memorandum documenting the ADA's development) mitigates the negative effect of inheriting the ADA. Evidence from mediation analyses suggests that these effects are driven by decreased psychological ownership when auditors inherit the ADA.