高頓網(wǎng)校小編為大家?guī)?lái)了ACCA F8知識(shí)點(diǎn)：Detection Risk，即審計(jì)檢查風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
　　Detection risk—the risk that the procedures performed by the auditor to reduce risk to an acceptably low level will not detect a misstatement that exists and that could be material, either individually or when aggregated with other misstatements.
　　There are two elements of detection risk:
　　a. sampling risk; and
　　b. non-sampling risk.
　　1 Sampling Risk
　　This arises from the possibility that the auditor's conclusion, based on a sample, may be different from the conclusion that would be reached if the entire population was subjected to the same audit procedure.
　　Effectiveness: through sampling, if the auditor concludes that CR is lower than it actually is or that a material error does not exist in the financial statements when in fact it does, there is a higher risk that an inappropriate audit opinion will be given. This affects audit effectiveness.
　　Efficiency: conversely, if the conclusion is that CR is higher than it actually is or that a material error in the financial statements exists when in fact it does not, this affects audit efficiency, as more work than necessary will be carried out (see also Session 19).
　　2 Non-sampling Risk
　　Non-sampling risk can be minimized through, for example, adequate planning, assigning appropriate staff (e.g. experienced, trained, technically competent), the application of professional judgement, clear supervision and review of the work carried out. This extends to the overall quality control procedures implemented by the firm.
　　Non-sampling risk arises from factors which cause the auditor to reach an erroneous conclusion for any reason not related to sampling, for example:
　　failure to adequately understand the entity or carry out the risk assessment; inadequate audit strategy, planning and work programme;
　　misapplication of an audit procedure by the audit team (e.g. through lack of training, incorrect directional application);
　　misinterpretation of test results (e.g. not recognising the significance of an error or nor recognising that there is an error); and
　　poor quality control procedures (e.g. briefing, supervision and review).
　　As IR and CR assessments influence the nature, timing and extent (NET) of substantive procedures to be performed to reduce DR (and therefore audit risk) to an acceptably low level, any inappropriate assessment will have a direct, negative, effect on DR.