ISA 530

Issued January 2009;

updated June 2018

International Standard on Auditing™

Audit Sampling
 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING 530
AUDIT SAMPLING
The Malaysian Institute of Accountants has approved this standard in June 2018 for
publication. This standard should be read in conjunction with the Preface to the Malaysian
Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance and Related Services Pronouncements;
and the Malaysian Approved Preface to the International Quality Control, Auditing, Review,
Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements; Glossary of Terms; and
International Framework for Assurance Engagements.
The status of International Standards on Auditing is set out in the Preface to the Malaysian
Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance and Related Services Pronouncements.

Applicability
International Standards on Auditing are to be applied in the audit of historical financial
information.

Changes from January 2009

Editorial changes as necessary.

Effective Date in Malaysia

This ISA is effective for audits of financial statements for periods
beginning on or after 1 January 2010.

Copyright © December 2016 by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). All

rights reserved. Used with permission of IFAC. Contact [email protected] for permission
to reproduce, store or transmit, or to make other similar uses of this document.

1
 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON AUDITING 530
AUDIT SAMPLING
(Effective for audits of financial statements for periods
beginning on or after January 1, 2010)

CONTENTS
Paragraph
Introduction
Scope of this ISA ............................................................................................................. 12
Effective Date .................................................................................................................. 3
Objective ........................................................................................................................ 4
Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 5
Requirements
Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing ................................................ 68
Performing Audit Procedures .......................................................................................... 911
Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements ...................................................... 1213
Projecting Misstatements ................................................................................................ 14
Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling ............................................................................. 15
Application and Other Explanatory Material
Definitions ........................................................................................................................ A1A3
Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing ................................................ A4A13
Performing Audit Procedures .......................................................................................... A14A16
Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements ...................................................... A17
Projecting Misstatements ................................................................................................ A18A20
Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling ............................................................................. A21A23
Appendix 1: Stratification and Value-Weighted Selection
Appendix 2: Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests
of Controls
Appendix 3: Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests
of Details
Appendix 4: Sample Selection Methods

International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 530, Audit Sampling, should be read in conjunction with ISA
200, Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with
International Standards on Auditing.

2
 AUDIT SAMPLING

Introduction
Scope of this ISA
1. This International Standard on Auditing (ISA) applies when the auditor has decided to use
audit sampling in performing audit procedures. It deals with the auditor’s use of statistical and
non-statistical sampling when designing and selecting the audit sample, performing tests of
controls and tests of details, and evaluating the results from the sample.
2. This ISA complements ISA 500, 1 which deals with the auditor’s responsibility to design and
perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw
reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor’s opinion. ISA 500 provides guidance on the
means available to the auditor for selecting items for testing, of which audit sampling is one
means.

Effective Date
3. This ISA is effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after
January 1, 2010.

Objective
4. The objective of the auditor, when using audit sampling, is to provide a reasonable basis for
the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected.

Definitions
5. For purposes of the ISAs, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:
(a) Audit sampling (sampling) – The application of audit procedures to less than 100% of
items within a population of audit relevance such that all sampling units have a chance
of selection in order to provide the auditor with a reasonable basis on which to draw
conclusions about the entire population.
(b) Population – The entire set of data from which a sample is selected and about which
the auditor wishes to draw conclusions.
(c) Sampling risk – The risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be
different from the conclusion if the entire population were subjected to the same audit
procedure. Sampling risk can lead to two types of erroneous conclusions:
(i) In the case of a test of controls, that controls are more effective than they actually
are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement does not exist
when in fact it does. The auditor is primarily concerned with this type of
erroneous conclusion because it affects audit effectiveness and is more likely to
lead to an inappropriate audit opinion.
(ii) In the case of a test of controls, that controls are less effective than they actually
are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement exists when in
fact it does not. This type of erroneous conclusion affects audit efficiency as it
would usually lead to additional work to establish that initial conclusions were
incorrect.
(d) Non-sampling risk – The risk that the auditor reaches an erroneous conclusion for any
reason not related to sampling risk. (Ref: Para. A1)
(e) Anomaly – A misstatement or deviation that is demonstrably not representative of
misstatements or deviations in a population.
(f) Sampling unit – The individual items constituting a population. (Ref: Para. A2)
(g) Statistical sampling – An approach to sampling that has the following characteristics:
(i) Random selection of the sample items; and

1
ISA 500, Audit Evidence

3
 AUDIT SAMPLING

(ii) The use of probability theory to evaluate sample results, including measurement
of sampling risk.
A sampling approach that does not have characteristics (i) and (ii) is considered non-
statistical sampling.
(h) Stratification – The process of dividing a population into sub-populations, each of which
is a group of sampling units which have similar characteristics (often monetary value).
(i) Tolerable misstatement – A monetary amount set by the auditor in respect of which the
auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the monetary amount set
by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual misstatement in the population. (Ref: Para.
A3)
(j) Tolerable rate of deviation – A rate of deviation from prescribed internal control
procedures set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an
appropriate level of assurance that the rate of deviation set by the auditor is not
exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population.

Requirements
Sample Design, Size, and Selection of Items for Testing
6. When designing an audit sample, the auditor shall consider the purpose of the audit
procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn.
(Ref: Para. A4–A9)
7. The auditor shall determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably
low level. (Ref: Para. A10–A11)
8. The auditor shall select items for the sample in such a way that each sampling unit in the
population has a chance of selection. (Ref: Para. A12–A13)

Performing Audit Procedures

9. The auditor shall perform audit procedures, appropriate to the purpose, on each item
selected.
10. If the audit procedure is not applicable to the selected item, the auditor shall perform the
procedure on a replacement item. (Ref: Para. A14)
11. If the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures, or suitable alternative
procedures, to a selected item, the auditor shall treat that item as a deviation from the
prescribed control, in the case of tests of controls, or a misstatement, in the case of tests of
details. (Ref: Para. A15–A16)

Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements

12. The auditor shall investigate the nature and cause of any deviations or misstatements
identified, and evaluate their possible effect on the purpose of the audit procedure and on
other areas of the audit. (Ref: Para. A17)
13. In the extremely rare circumstances when the auditor considers a misstatement or deviation
discovered in a sample to be an anomaly, the auditor shall obtain a high degree of certainty
that such misstatement or deviation is not representative of the population. The auditor shall
obtain this degree of certainty by performing additional audit procedures to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that the misstatement or deviation does not affect the remainder
of the population.

Projecting Misstatements
14. For tests of details, the auditor shall project misstatements found in the sample to the
population. (Ref: Para. A18–A20)

4
 AUDIT SAMPLING

Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling

15. The auditor shall evaluate:
(a) The results of the sample; and (Ref: Para. A21–A22)
(b) Whether the use of audit sampling has provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about
the population that has been tested. (Ref: Para. A23)

***

Application and Other Explanatory Material

Definitions
Non-Sampling Risk (Ref: Para. 5(d))
A1. Examples of non-sampling risk include use of inappropriate audit procedures, or misinterpretation
of audit evidence and failure to recognize a misstatement or deviation.

Sampling Unit (Ref: Para. 5(f))

A2. The sampling units might be physical items (for example, checks listed on deposit slips, credit
entries on bank statements, sales invoices or debtors’ balances) or monetary units.

Tolerable Misstatement (Ref: Para. 5(i))

A3. When designing a sample, the auditor determines tolerable misstatement in order to address
the risk that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial
statements to be materially misstated and provide a margin for possible undetected
misstatements. Tolerable misstatement is the application of performance materiality, as
defined in ISA 320,2 to a particular sampling procedure. Tolerable misstatement may be the
same amount or an amount lower than performance materiality.

Sample Design, Size, and Selection of Items for Testing

Sample Design (Ref: Para. 6)
A4. Audit sampling enables the auditor to obtain and evaluate audit evidence about some
characteristic of the items selected in order to form or assist in forming a conclusion
concerning the population from which the sample is drawn. Audit sampling can be applied
using either non-statistical or statistical sampling approaches.
A5. When designing an audit sample, the auditor’s consideration includes the specific purpose to be
achieved and the combination of audit procedures that is likely to best achieve that purpose.
Consideration of the nature of the audit evidence sought and possible deviation or misstatement
conditions or other characteristics relating to that audit evidence will assist the auditor in defining
what constitutes a deviation or misstatement and what population to use for sampling. In fulfilling
the requirement of paragraph 10 of ISA 500, when performing audit sampling, the auditor
performs audit procedures to obtain evidence that the population from which the audit sample is
drawn is complete.
A6. The auditor’s consideration of the purpose of the audit procedure, as required by paragraph 6,
includes a clear understanding of what constitutes a deviation or misstatement so that all, and
only those, conditions that are relevant to the purpose of the audit procedure are included in the
evaluation of deviations or projection of misstatements. For example, in a test of details relating to
the existence of accounts receivable, such as confirmation, payments made by the customer
before the confirmation date but received shortly after that date by the client, are not considered a
misstatement. Also, a misposting between customer accounts does not affect the total accounts
receivable balance. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to consider this a misstatement in
evaluating the sample results of this particular audit procedure, even though it may have an

2
ISA 320, Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit, paragraph 9

5
 AUDIT SAMPLING

important effect on other areas of the audit, such as the assessment of the risk of fraud or the
adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts.
A7. In considering the characteristics of a population, for tests of controls, the auditor makes an
assessment of the expected rate of deviation based on the auditor’s understanding of the
relevant controls or on the examination of a small number of items from the population. This
assessment is made in order to design an audit sample and to determine sample size. For
example, if the expected rate of deviation is unacceptably high, the auditor will normally
decide not to perform tests of controls. Similarly, for tests of details, the auditor makes an
assessment of the expected misstatement in the population. If the expected misstatement is
high, 100% examination or use of a large sample size may be appropriate when performing
tests of details.
A8. In considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the
auditor may determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. Appendix
1 provides further discussion on stratification and value-weighted selection.
A9. The decision whether to use a statistical or non-statistical sampling approach is a matter for
the auditor’s judgment; however, sample size is not a valid criterion to distinguish between
statistical and non-statistical approaches.

Sample Size (Ref: Para. 7)

A10. The level of sampling risk that the auditor is willing to accept affects the sample size required.
The lower the risk the auditor is willing to accept, the greater the sample size will need to be.
A11. The sample size can be determined by the application of a statistically-based formula or
through the exercise of professional judgment. Appendices 2 and 3 indicate the influences that
various factors typically have on the determination of sample size. When circumstances are
similar, the effect on sample size of factors such as those identified in Appendices 2 and 3 will
be similar regardless of whether a statistical or non-statistical approach is chosen.

Selection of Items for Testing (Ref: Para. 8)

A12. With statistical sampling, sample items are selected in a way that each sampling unit has a
known probability of being selected. With non-statistical sampling, judgment is used to select
sample items. Because the purpose of sampling is to provide a reasonable basis for the
auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected, it is
important that the auditor selects a representative sample, so that bias is avoided, by
choosing sample items which have characteristics typical of the population.
A13. The principal methods of selecting samples are the use of random selection, systematic
selection and haphazard selection. Each of these methods is discussed in Appendix 4.

Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10–11)

A14. An example of when it is necessary to perform the procedure on a replacement item is when a
voided check is selected while testing for evidence of payment authorization. If the auditor is
satisfied that the check has been properly voided such that it does not constitute a deviation, an
appropriately chosen replacement is examined.
A15. An example of when the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures to a selected
item is when documentation relating to that item has been lost.
A16. An example of a suitable alternative procedure might be the examination of subsequent cash
receipts together with evidence of their source and the items they are intended to settle when
no reply has been received in response to a positive confirmation request.

Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements (Ref: Para. 12)

A17. In analyzing the deviations and misstatements identified, the auditor may observe that many have
a common feature, for example, type of transaction, location, product line or period of time. In
such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all items in the population that possess the

6
 AUDIT SAMPLING

common feature, and extend audit procedures to those items. In addition, such deviations or
misstatements may be intentional, and may indicate the possibility of fraud.

Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)

A18. The auditor is required to project misstatements for the population to obtain a broad view of
the scale of misstatement but this projection may not be sufficient to determine an amount to
be recorded.
A19. When a misstatement has been established as an anomaly, it may be excluded when
projecting misstatements to the population. However, the effect of any such misstatement, if
uncorrected, still needs to be considered in addition to the projection of the non-anomalous
misstatements.
A20. For tests of controls, no explicit projection of deviations is necessary since the sample
deviation rate is also the projected deviation rate for the population as a whole. ISA 330 3
provides guidance when deviations from controls upon which the auditor intends to rely are
detected.

Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)

A21. For tests of controls, an unexpectedly high sample deviation rate may lead to an increase in the
assessed risk of material misstatement, unless further audit evidence substantiating the initial
assessment is obtained. For tests of details, an unexpectedly high misstatement amount in a
sample may cause the auditor to believe that a class of transactions or account balance is
materially misstated, in the absence of further audit evidence that no material misstatement exists.
A22. In the case of tests of details, the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if
any, is the auditor’s best estimate of misstatement in the population. When the projected
misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, exceeds tolerable misstatement, the
sample does not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has
been tested. The closer the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement is to
tolerable misstatement, the more likely that actual misstatement in the population may
exceed tolerable misstatement. Also if the projected misstatement is greater than the
auditor’s expectations of misstatement used to determine the sample size, the auditor may
conclude that there is an unacceptable sampling risk that the actual misstatement in the
population exceeds the tolerable misstatement. Considering the results of other audit
procedures helps the auditor to assess the risk that actual misstatement in the population
exceeds tolerable misstatement, and the risk may be reduced if additional audit evidence is
obtained.
A23. If the auditor concludes that audit sampling has not provided a reasonable basis for conclusions
about the population that has been tested, the auditor may:
 Request management to investigate misstatements that have been identified and the
potential for further misstatements and to make any necessary adjustments; or
 Tailor the nature, timing and extent of those further audit procedures to best achieve
the required assurance. For example, in the case of tests of controls, the auditor might
extend the sample size, test an alternative control or modify related substantive
procedures.

3
ISA 330, The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks, paragraph 17

7
 AUDIT SAMPLING

Appendix 1
(Ref: Para. A8)

Stratification and Value-Weighted Selection

In considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the auditor may
determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. This Appendix provides guidance to
the auditor on the use of stratification and value-weighted sampling techniques.

Stratification
1. Audit efficiency may be improved if the auditor stratifies a population by dividing it into discrete
sub-populations which have an identifying characteristic. The objective of stratification is to reduce
the variability of items within each stratum and therefore allow sample size to be reduced without
increasing sampling risk.
2. When performing tests of details, the population is often stratified by monetary value. This
allows greater audit effort to be directed to the larger value items, as these items may contain
the greatest potential misstatement in terms of overstatement. Similarly, a population may be
stratified according to a particular characteristic that indicates a higher risk of misstatement,
for example, when testing the allowance for doubtful accounts in the valuation of accounts
receivable, balances may be stratified by age.
3. The results of audit procedures applied to a sample of items within a stratum can only be
projected to the items that make up that stratum. To draw a conclusion on the entire
population, the auditor will need to consider the risk of material misstatement in relation to
whatever other strata make up the entire population. For example, 20% of the items in a
population may make up 90% of the value of an account balance. The auditor may decide to
examine a sample of these items. The auditor evaluates the results of this sample and
reaches a conclusion on the 90% of value separately from the remaining 10% (on which a
further sample or other means of gathering audit evidence will be used, or which may be
considered immaterial).
4. If a class of transactions or account balance has been divided into strata, the misstatement is
projected for each stratum separately. Projected misstatements for each stratum are then
combined when considering the possible effect of misstatements on the total class of
transactions or account balance.

Value-Weighted Selection
5. When performing tests of details it may be efficient to identify the sampling unit as the individual
monetary units that make up the population. Having selected specific monetary units from within
the population, for example, the accounts receivable balance, the auditor may then examine the
particular items, for example, individual balances, that contain those monetary units. One benefit
of this approach to defining the sampling unit is that audit effort is directed to the larger value
items because they have a greater chance of selection, and can result in smaller sample sizes.
This approach may be used in conjunction with the systematic method of sample selection
(described in Appendix 4) and is most efficient when selecting items using random selection.

8
 AUDIT SAMPLING

Appendix 2
(Ref: Para. A11)

Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Controls

The following are factors that the auditor may consider when determining the sample size for tests of
controls. These factors, which need to be considered together, assume the auditor does not modify the
nature or timing of tests of controls or otherwise modify the approach to substantive procedures in
response to assessed risks.

EFFECT ON
FACTOR SAMPLE SIZE

1. An increase in the Increase The more assurance the auditor intends to obtain from the
extent to which the operating effectiveness of controls, the lower the auditor’s
auditor’s risk assessment of the risk of material misstatement will be,
assessment takes and the larger the sample size will need to be. When the
into account auditor’s assessment of the risk of material misstatement
relevant controls at the assertion level includes an expectation of the
operating effectiveness of controls, the auditor is required
to perform tests of controls. Other things being equal, the
greater the reliance the auditor places on the operating
effectiveness of controls in the risk assessment, the
greater is the extent of the auditor’s tests of controls (and
therefore, the sample size is increased).

2. An increase in the Decrease The lower the tolerable rate of deviation, the larger the
tolerable rate of sample size needs to be.
deviation

3. An increase in the Increase The higher the expected rate of deviation, the larger the
expected rate of sample size needs to be so that the auditor is in a
deviation of the position to make a reasonable estimate of the actual
population to be rate of deviation. Factors relevant to the auditor’s
tested consideration of the expected rate of deviation include
the auditor’s understanding of the business (in
particular, risk assessment procedures undertaken to
obtain an understanding of internal control), changes in
personnel or in internal control, the results of audit
procedures applied in prior periods and the results of
other audit procedures. High expected control deviation
rates ordinarily warrant little, if any, reduction of the
assessed risk of material misstatement.

4. An increase in the Increase The greater the level of assurance that the auditor
auditor’s desired desires that the results of the sample are in fact
level of assurance indicative of the actual incidence of deviation in the
that the tolerable population, the larger the sample size needs to be.
rate of deviation is
not exceeded by
the actual rate of
deviation in the
population

5. An increase in the Negligible For large populations, the actual size of the population
number of effect has little, if any, effect on sample size. For small
sampling units in populations however, audit sampling may not be as

9
 AUDIT SAMPLING

EFFECT ON
FACTOR SAMPLE SIZE
the population efficient as alternative means of obtaining sufficient
appropriate audit evidence.

10
 AUDIT SAMPLING

Appendix 3
(Ref: Para. A11)

Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Details

The following are factors that the auditor may consider when determining the sample size for tests of
details. These factors, which need to be considered together, assume the auditor does not modify the
approach to tests of controls or otherwise modify the nature or timing of substantive procedures in
response to the assessed risks.

EFFECT ON
FACTOR SAMPLE SIZE

1. An increase in the Increase The higher the auditor’s assessment of the risk of
auditor’s assessment material misstatement, the larger the sample size
of the risk of material needs to be. The auditor’s assessment of the risk of
misstatement material misstatement is affected by inherent risk and
control risk. For example, if the auditor does not
perform tests of controls, the auditor’s risk assessment
cannot be reduced for the effective operation of internal
controls with respect to the particular assertion.
Therefore, in order to reduce audit risk to an acceptably
low level, the auditor needs a low detection risk and will
rely more on substantive procedures. The more audit
evidence that is obtained from tests of details (that is,
the lower the detection risk), the larger the sample size
will need to be.

2. An increase in the Decrease The more the auditor is relying on other substantive
use of other procedures (tests of details or substantive analytical
substantive procedures) to reduce to an acceptable level the
procedures directed detection risk regarding a particular population, the
at the same less assurance the auditor will require from sampling
assertion and, therefore, the smaller the sample size can be.

3. An increase in the Increase The greater the level of assurance that the auditor
auditor’s desired requires that the results of the sample are in fact
level of assurance indicative of the actual amount of misstatement in the
that tolerable population, the larger the sample size needs to be.
misstatement is not
exceeded by actual
misstatement in the
population

4. An increase in Decrease The lower the tolerable misstatement, the larger the
tolerable sample size needs to be.
misstatement

5. An increase in the Increase The greater the amount of misstatement the auditor
amount of expects to find in the population, the larger the sample
misstatement the size needs to be in order to make a reasonable
auditor expects to estimate of the actual amount of misstatement in the
find in the population population. Factors relevant to the auditor’s
consideration of the expected misstatement amount
include the extent to which item values are
determined subjectively, the results of risk
assessment procedures, the results of tests of control,
the results of audit procedures applied in prior

11
 AUDIT SAMPLING

EFFECT ON
FACTOR SAMPLE SIZE
periods, and the results of other substantive
procedures.

6. Stratification of the Decrease When there is a wide range (variability) in the

population when monetary size of items in the population, it may be
appropriate useful to stratify the population. When a population
can be appropriately stratified, the aggregate of the
sample sizes from the strata generally will be less
than the sample size that would have been required to
attain a given level of sampling risk, had one sample
been drawn from the whole population.

7. The number of Negligible For large populations, the actual size of the population
sampling units in the effect has little, if any, effect on sample size. Thus, for small
population populations, audit sampling is often not as efficient as
alternative means of obtaining sufficient appropriate
audit evidence. (However, when using monetary unit
sampling, an increase in the monetary value of the
population increases sample size, unless this is offset
by a proportional increase in materiality for the
financial statements as a whole [and, if applicable,
materiality level or levels for particular classes of
transactions, account balances or disclosures].)

12
 AUDIT SAMPLING

Appendix 4
(Ref: Para. A13)

Sample Selection Methods

There are many methods of selecting samples. The principal methods are as follows:
(a) Random selection (applied through random number generators, for example, random number
tables).
(b) Systematic selection, in which the number of sampling units in the population is divided by the
sample size to give a sampling interval, for example 50, and having determined a starting point
within the first 50, each 50th sampling unit thereafter is selected. Although the starting point
may be determined haphazardly, the sample is more likely to be truly random if it is determined
by use of a computerized random number generator or random number tables. When using
systematic selection, the auditor would need to determine that sampling units within the
population are not structured in such a way that the sampling interval corresponds with a
particular pattern in the population.
(c) Monetary Unit Sampling is a type of value-weighted selection (as described in Appendix 1) in
which sample size, selection and evaluation results in a conclusion in monetary amounts.
(d) Haphazard selection, in which the auditor selects the sample without following a structured
technique. Although no structured technique is used, the auditor would nonetheless avoid any
conscious bias or predictability (for example, avoiding difficult to locate items, or always
choosing or avoiding the first or last entries on a page) and thus attempt to ensure that all items
in the population have a chance of selection. Haphazard selection is not appropriate when
using statistical sampling.
(e) Block selection involves selection of a block(s) of contiguous items from within the population.
Block selection cannot ordinarily be used in audit sampling because most populations are
structured such that items in a sequence can be expected to have similar characteristics to
each other, but different characteristics from items elsewhere in the population. Although in
some circumstances it may be an appropriate audit procedure to examine a block of items, it
would rarely be an appropriate sample selection technique when the auditor intends to draw
valid inferences about the entire population based on the sample.

13
Dewan Akauntan, Unit 33-01, Level 33, Tower A, The Vertical, Avenue 3
Bangsar South City, No.8, Jalan Kerinchi, 59200 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
[phone] +603 2722 9000 [fax] +603 2722 9100
[web] www.mia.org.my [email] [email protected]