Perkembangan Pertimbangan Profesional Auditor dan Kualitas Audit

Authors

  • Claudia Wanda Melati Korompis Universitas Sam Ratulangi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37195/jtebr.v1i1.18

Keywords:

Pertimbangan, Kualitas, Audit, Kognitif

Abstract

Praktik akuntansi dan audit akan terus berubah sepanjang masa. Bukti perubahannya adalah melalui paradigma yang terus bergeser. Akuntansi mulanya hanya dipahami sebagai pelaporan transaksi keuangan yang bersifat historis sedangkan audit sebagai pemeriksaan berbagai transaksi keuangan entitas berdasarkan standar yang berlaku. Pemahaman terhadap akuntansi kemudian bergeser lebih kepada menafsirkan suatu fenomena ekonomi yang kompleks. Pertimbangan dan pengambilan keputusan dalam audit sangat dibutuhkan karena auditor menjadi pihak ketiga yang independen untuk memberikan pendapat yang tidak memihak bagi stakeholder dalam mengambil keputusan bisnis. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini berbentuk rerangka konseptual untuk menjelaskan perkembangan konsep pertimbangan auditor dan kualitas audit. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meilihat pergeseran konsep pertimbangan audit dari model normatif kepada pengujian atas proses kognitif, yang diharapkan dapat menemukan alat bantu keputusan auditor yang akan berimplikasi langsung kepada kualitas audit. Hasil penelitian ini memperlihatkan pentingnya memahami proses kognitif yang mendasari pertimbangan untuk membangun kepercayaan pada diri dan meningkatkan tingkat akurasi informasi dalam membentuk keputusan yang tepat.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baridwan, Zaki. (2000). “Perkembangan Teori dan Penelitian Akuntansi”. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis Indonesia Universitas Gadjah Mada. Vol 15 No.4. pp. 486-497.

Beatty, Randolph P. (1989). “Auditor Reputation and the Pricing of Initial Public Offering”, The Accounting Review, vol . 64.

Becker, Connie L., Defond, Mark L., Jiambalvo, James., Subramanyam, KR. (1998). "The Effect of Audit Quality on Earnings Management”. Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.15 No.1, pp.1-24.

Behn, Bruce K., Carcello, Joseph V., Hermanson, Dana R., Hermanson, Roger H. (1999). “Client Satisfaction and Big 6 Audit Fees”. Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.16 No.4, pp.587-608.

Bowlin, K. O., Hobson, J. L. and Piercey, M. D. (2012). “The Effects of Auditor Rotation, Professional Skepticism, and Interactions with Managers on Audit Quality”. The Accounting Review, 90(4), pp. 1363–1393.

Craswell, Allen T., Francis, Jere R., Taylor, Stephen L. (1995). “Auditor Brand Name Reputations and Industry Specializations”. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20, pp.297-322.

Davidson, R. A., dan Neu, D. (1993). “A Note on the Association between Audit Firm Size and Audit Quality”. Contemporary Accounting Research, 9 (2), pp. 479-488.

DeAngelo, L. E. (1981b). “Auditor Size and Audit Quality”. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 3 (December), pp. 183-199.

Deis, D. R., dan Giroux, G. A. (1992). “Determinants of Audit Quality in the Public Sector”. The Accounting Review, 67 (3), pp. 462-179.

Departemen Keuangan Republik Indonesia. (2009). Mengatasi Dampak Krisis Global Melalui Program Stimulus Fiskal APBN 2009. http://www.anggaran.depkeu.go.id/Content/09-02-24,%20MengatasiDampakKrisisGlobal.pdf. Diakses tanggal : 20 Maret 2019.

Detikfinance. (2009). Kronologi dan Latar Belakang Krisis Finansial Global. https://finance.detik.com/moneter/d-1115753/kronologi-dan-latar-belakang-krisis-finansial-global. Diakses tanggal : 20 Maret 2019.

Djamhuri, Ali. (2011). “Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial dan Berbagai Paradigma dalam Kajian Akuntansi”. Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma Universitas Brawijaya. Vol.2 No.1. pp. 147-185. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18202/jamal.2011.04.7115

Francis, Jere R., Maydew, Edward L., Sparks, H. Charles. (1999). “The Role of Big 6 Auditors in the Credible Reporting of Accruals”. Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol.18.No.2, pp.17-34.

Griffith, E. E., Kadous, K. and Young, D. (2016) “How Insights from the ‘New’ JDM Research Can Improve Auditor Judgment: Fundamental Research Questions and Methodological Advice”. Auditing: A Journal Of Practice & Theory, 35(2), pp. 1–22. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-51347.

Griffith, E. E., Nolder, C. J. and Petty, R. E. (2018). ”The Elaboration Likelihood Model: A Meta-Theory for Synthesizing Auditor Judgment and Decision-Making Research”. Auditing: A Journal Of Practice & Theory, 37(4), pp. 169–186. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-52018.

Gul, F. A., Wu, D., dan Yang, Z. (2013). “Do individual auditors affect audit quality? Evidence from archival data”. The Accounting Review, 88 (6), pp. 1993-2023.

Hoos, F., Saad, E. Ben and Lesage, C. (2018). “Why are auditors blamed when something goes wrong ? Experimental evidence”. (May), pp. 1–13. doi: 10.1111/ijau.12126.

IAASB. (2014). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements. New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).

Jang, Hwee-Yong, Jonathan., Lin, Chan-Jane. (1993). “Audit Quality and Trading Volume Reaction: A Study of Initial Public Offering of Stocks”. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 12, pp.263-287.

Johnson, P. E., Jamal, K. and Berryman, G. (1989). “Audit Judgment Research”. Accounting Organizations And Society, 14(1/2), pp. 83–99.

Joubish, M. F. and Khurram, M. A. (2011). “Cognitive Development in Jean Piaget ’ s Work and its Implications for Teachers”. 12(8), pp. 1260–1265.

Kartajaya, Hermawan. (2008). New Wave Marketing. PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta.

Krishnan. (2002). “Audit Quality and The Pricing of Discretionary Accruals”. Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory. 22 (1), pp. 109-126.

Lefa, B. (2014). “The Piaget Theory Of Cognitive Development : An Educational Implications”. Educational Psychology, (September), pp. 1–7.

Lennox, Clives. (1999). “Are Large Auditors More Accurate Than Small Auditors?”. Accounting and Business Research, Vol.29. No.3. pp. 217-227.

Libby, R. and Luft, J. O. A. N. (1993). “Determinants of Judgment Performance in Accounting Settings : Ability, Knowledge, Motivation, and Environment”. Accounting Organizations and Society, 18(5), pp. 425–450.

Martens, S.C., McEnroe, J.E. (1992). “Substance over Form in Auditing and The Auditor’s Position of Public Trust”. Critical Perspective on Accounting. 3 : 389-401.

Mitroff, I.I., Betz, F. (1972). “Dialectical Decision Theory : A Meta-Theory of Decision-Making”. Management Science. Vol. 19 No. 11.

Palmrose, Z. (1988). “An Analysis of auditor litigation and service quality”. The Accounting Review, 63 ( 1), pp. 55-73.

Reynolds, J.K., Deis, D.R., Francis, J.R. (2004). “Professional Service Fees and Auditor Objectivity”. Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory. 23 (1), pp. 29-52.

Simnett, R. and Trotman, K. T. (2018). “Twenty-Five-Year Overview of Experimental Auditing Research: Trends and Links to Audit Quality”. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30(2), pp. 55–76. doi: 10.2308/bria-52138.

Simunic, D.A., (1980). “The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence”. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18 (1). pp. 161–190.

Skinner, D. J., dan Srinivasan, S. (2012). “Audit Quality and Auditor Reputation: Evidence from Japan”. The Accounting Review, 87 (5), pp. 1737-1765.

Solomon, Ira., Trotman, Ken,T. (2003). “Experimental Judgment and Decision research in Auditing : The First 25 Years of AOS”. Accounting Organizations and Society. 28, pp. 395-412.

Stice, J.D. (1991). “Using Financial and Market Information to Identify Pre-engagement Factors Associated With Lawsuits Against Auditors”. The Accounting Review. 66 (July), pp. 516-533.

Teoh, Siew Hong., Wong, T.J. (1993). “Perceived Auditor Quality and The Earnings Response Coefficient”. The Accounting Review, 68 (2), pp. 346-366.

Wedemeyer, Phil D. (2010). “A Discussion of Auditor Judgment as The Critical Component in Audit Qaulity-A Practitioner’s Perspective”. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Vol.7,4, pp 320-333.

Downloads

Published

2020-01-09

How to Cite

Korompis, C. W. M. (2020). Perkembangan Pertimbangan Profesional Auditor dan Kualitas Audit. Journal of Technopreneurship on Economics and Business Review, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.37195/jtebr.v1i1.18

Issue

Section

Articles
Abstract viewed = 272 times