Final answer:
Stop or go attribute sampling differs from fixed-sample-size attribute sampling mainly by offering flexibility on when to stop sampling, which can result in a smaller total expected sample size. However, it is not ideal for assessing control risk, and it does not inherently reduce nonsampling error.
Step-by-step explanation:
Stop or go attribute sampling and fixed-sample-size attribute sampling are procedures used in audit sampling. The main difference is how they determine the sample size needed to make a conclusion about the population. In stop or go attribute sampling, the auditor decides whether to accept or reject a population after each sample is tested, effectively allowing sampling to 'stop' if early results are highly favorable or unfavorable. This method can lead to a smaller total expected sample size compared to fixed-sample-size attribute sampling, where the size is predetermined and not adjusted dynamically based on results.
Moreover, in fixed-sample-size attribute sampling, the desired level of reliability must be specified in advance to determine an adequate sample size, while stop or go sampling allows for some flexibility. Due to its design, stop or go sampling is not suitable for determining the assessed level of control risk, as it does not provide a comprehensive view of the entire population. With regards to nonsampling error, this type of error is not inherently smaller in stop or go attribute sampling; nonsampling error can occur in any sampling method and is unrelated to whether the sampling is fixed-size or sequential.