difference between the two models in terms of prediction

Dr. Mahdi Salehi

Authors

Dr. Mahdi Salehi

Keywords:

data mining, going concern prediction, classification and regression tree, na#xEF;ve bayes bayesian network, financial ratios, iran

Abstract

This paper has employed a data mining approach for Going Concern Prediction (GCP) for one year ahead and has applied Classification and Regression Tree (CART) and Naïve Bayes Bayesian Network (NBBN) based on feature selection method in Iranian firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE). For this purpose, at the first step, using the Stepwise Discriminant Analysis (SDA) has opted the final variables from among of 42 variables and in the next stage, has applied 10-fold cross-validation to figure out the optimal model. Mc Nemar test signifies that there is a significant difference between the two models in terms of prediction accuracy and CART model is able to predict going concern more accurately. The CART model reached 99.92 and 98.62 percent accuracy rates so as to training and holdout data.

Downloads

How to Cite

difference between the two models in terms of prediction. (2013). Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 13(8), 25-30. https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/

Download Citation

References

AICPA (1998) The auditor's consideration of an entity's ability to continue in existence.

Sarah Ashoori, Shahriar Mohammadi (2011) Compare failure prediction models based on feature selection technique: empirical case from Iran. 3, 568-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.094

Anthony Brabazon, Peter Keenan (2004) A hybrid genetic model for the prediction of corporate failure. 1(3-4), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-004-0017-6

L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. Olshen, C. Stone (1984) Classification and regression trees.

Thomas Kida (1980) An Investigation into Auditors' Continuity and Related Qualification Judgments. 18(2), 506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490590

H. Koh (1987) Prediction of going-concern status: A probit model for the auditors.

H. Koh, R. Brown (1991) Probit prediction of going and non-going concerns. 6(3), 18-23.

H. Koh, L. Killough (1988) Proposed statement on auditing standards: the auditor's consideration of an entity's ability to continue existence. 40(2), 6-24.

H. Koh, C. Kee Low (2004) Going concern prediction using data mining techniques. 19(3), 462-476.

Hui Li, Jie Sun, Jian Wu (2010) Predicting business failure using classification and regression tree: An empirical comparison with popular classical statistical methods and top classification mining methods. 37(8), 5895-5904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.016

Z. Markov (2007) Probabilistic reasoning with naïve bayes and Bayesian networks.

D. Martens, Baesens L. Bruyneseels, Willekens B, M, J. Vanthienen (2008) Predicting going concern opinion with data mining. 45(4), 765-777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.01.003

T. McKee (1976) Discriminant prediction of going concern status: A model for auditors.

Krishnagopal Menon, Kenneth Schwartz (1987) An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going concern uncertainties*. 3(2), 302-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00640.x

F. Mokhatab Rafiei, S. Manzari, S. Bostanian (2011) Financial health prediction models using artificial neural networks, genetic algorithm and multivariate discriminant analysis: Iranian evidence. 38(8), 0210-1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.082

S. Soni (2010) Implementation of multivariate data set by CART algorithm. 2(2), 455-459.

Lili Sun, Prakash Shenoy (2007) Using Bayesian networks for bankruptcy prediction: Some methodological issues. 180(2), 738-753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.04.019

R. Timofeev (2004) Classification and regression tree, theory and application. A master thesis.