本研究主要在探討在機率與金額大小成比例抽樣方法(Probability Proportional to Size)下，是否可以在考量審計抽樣效果的前提下，同時著重於抽樣效率。本文利用Ulrich Menzefricke於1983年所改良的最小成本方法論，在審計抽樣進行前，藉由錯誤接受風險參數的設定，預先得出先行的相對錯誤拒絶風險值，並進一步透過系統實際的進行抽樣，將結果與傳統機率與金額大小成比例抽樣方法進行比較，得出最小成本方法論的抽樣效果與效率的預估準確度。
歸納本研究之結果如下：由於最小成本抽樣法並沒有對金額重大被抽取機率變大的因素進行考量，因此在事先估計錯誤拒絶風險值大小的部份，並無法很準確的估算出來；又因為最小成本抽樣法以截斷值作為拒絶域，單純以抽樣錯誤個數作為判斷依據，沒有對錯誤資料進行的金額差異大小進行加權分析，因此會導致錯誤判斷的情況發生；再者，最小成本抽樣法在相同參數設定下，所得出的抽樣個數為一固定值，不會隨著元額大小的改變、母體樣本多寡進行調整，導致降低檢測能力並影響誤拒險的估計準確度。
另外，就錯誤資料以小元額連續錯誤及大元額後接小元額方式排列所進行的實驗結果顯示，在母體不具重大誤述時，最小成本抽樣法、傳統PPS法都可以有效降低錯誤資料被抽取的機會；但在母體具重大誤述時，只有最小成本抽樣法能效降低錯誤資料被抽取的機會。原因在於，傳統PPS法會對錯誤金額大小進行加權，因此效果較不顯著。

This research primarily focuses on inquiring into in the probability proportional to size method, whether may in under the consideration audit sampling effect premise, simultaneously emphatically to the sampling efficiency. This article uses Ulrich Menzefricke the minimum cost methodology which improved in 1983. Before audit sampling, we obtain the advance relative error to resist the risk value in advance by hypothesizing the wrong acceptable risk parameter. And carries on a sampling physically through the system, the result and traditional proportional to size method become comparison sampling the method carries on a comparison, obtained the sampling result and efficiency of the minimum cost methodology to estimate an accurate degree.

Induce the result of this research as follows: The minimum cost sampling method didn't be sampled the factor that the probability becomes big to carry on a consideration to the amount of money graveness, so Be estimating mistake to refuse The risk is worth the part of the size, and can't estimate very accurately; And further because is the minimum cost sampling method worth by cutting off point, the simplicity judges a basis by the sampling mistake numbers, the amount difference size which carries on to the wrong material has not carried on the weighting analysis, therefore can cause the wrong judgement the situation occurrence; Furthermore, the minimum cost sampling method under the same parameter hypothesis, the obtained sampling size is a fixture, can't along with the volume size change, how much the parent substance sample carry on the adjustment, causes to reduce the examination ability and the influence resists dangerous by mistake the estimate accuracy.

Moreover, the wrong material meets the experimental result after the small volume continual mistake and the Great volume which the small volume way arrangement carries on to demonstrate, does not have when the parent substance significant states by mistake, the smallest cost sampling method, the traditional PPS method all may effectively reduce the wrong material the opportunity which extracts; But has when the parent substance significant states by mistake, only has the smallest cost sampling method to be able the effect to reduce the wrong material the opportunity which extracts. The reason lies in, the traditional PPS method carries on the weighting to the wrong amount size, therefore the result isn't so obvious.

中文部份
1. 財團法人會計研究發展基金會，審計準則公報 No.26
http://www.ardf.org.tw/centeraudit.htm
2. 馮拙人、蔡幸夫，審計學概念和應用，台北，新陸書局，2002
3. 吳琮璠，審計學：新觀念與本土化，再版，台北，智勝文化事業有限公司，2002
4. 顏月珠，商用統計學，三版，台北，三明書局股份有限公司，2002

英文部份
1. Richard B. Lanza, 101 ACL Applications: A Toolkit for Today’s Auditor, second edition, Global Audit Publications, 1997
2. AICPA, Auditing Sampling. Statement on Auditing Standards No.39, 1981
3. AICPA, Consideration of the Internal Control Structure in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No.55, 1988
4. James L. Boockholdt, D. R. Finley, ”A MINIMUM-COST AUDIT SAMPLING METHODOLOGY UNDER CONDITIONS OF PREDETERMINED BETA RISK” , Decision sciences, 11, 1980, pp. 702-713
5. Ulrich Menzefricke, “On Sampling Plan Selection with Dollar-Unit Sampling”, Journal of Accounting Research(Spring), 21(1), 1983, pp. 96-105
6. Kay W. Tatum, “Solving Audit Sampling Problems”, The CPA Journal, 57(8), 1987, pp. 91
7. Sean Windsor, “The Use of Audit Sampling Techniques to Test Inventory”, Journal of Accountancy, 171(1), 1991, pp.107
8. John Wurst, John Neter, James Godfrey, 1991, “Effectiveness of Rectification in Audit Sampling”, The Accounting Review, 66(2), 1991, pp. 333-346
9. Chak-Tong Chau, “Finding the bad egg: Audit sampling risk”, The National Public Accountant, 39(8), 1994, pp.20
10. Jack C. Robertson, Robert Rouse, “Substantive Audit Sampling – The challenge of Achieving Efficiency Along with Effectiveness”, Accounting Horizons, 8(1), 1994, pp.35-44
11. Jack C. Robertson, “A Constrained Cost-minimization Model for Audit Sample Planning”, Auditing, 14(2), 1995, pp.105.
12. Neal B. Hitzig, Julian E. Jacoby, “Control procedures and risk assessment – Making SAS No.55 userfriendly”, The CPA Journal, 65(4), 1995, pp. 46
13. Neal B. Hitzig, “”, The CPA Journal, 65(7), 1995, pp. 54
14. Donald A. Schwartz, “Audit sampling--a practical approach”, The CPA Journal, 67(2), 1997, pp.56
15. Donald A. Schwartz, “Computerized audit sampling”, The CPA Journal, 68(11), 1998, pp.46
16. Neal B. Hitzig, “Detecting and Estimating Misstatement in Two-Step Sequential Sampling with Probability Proportional to Size”, Auditing, 17(1), 1998, pp. 54
17. Thomas W. Hall, James E. Hunton, Bethane Jo Pierce, “The Use of and Selection Biases Associated with Nonstatistical Sampling in Auditing”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12, 2000, pp.231
18. William F. Messier Jr, Steven J. Kachelmeier, Kevan L. Jensen, “An experimental assessment of recent professional developments in nonstatistical audit sampling guidance”, Auditing , 20(1), 2001, pp.81
19. Thomas W. Hall, Terri L. Herron, Bethane Jo Pierce, Terry J. Witt, “The Effectiveness of Increasing Sample Size to Mitigate the Influence of Population Characteristics in Haphazard Sampling”, Auditing, 20(1), 2001, pp.169
20. Thomas W. Hall, James E. Hunton, Bethane Jo Pierce, “Sampling Practices of Auditors in Public Accounting, Industry, and Government”, Accounting Horizons, 16(2), 2002, pp.125-136
21. Neal B. Hitzig, “Elements of Sampling: The Population, the Frame, and the Sampling Unit”, The CPA Journal, 74(11), 2004, pp.30