Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 1, 2021
Accepted
April 1, 2021
Published
April 1, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 280 Download : 1282

Main Article Content

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of client integrity and audit risk assessment toward audit evidence validity by exploring Integrity Theory, Risk Theory, and Evedence Theory. The data used in this study are primary data by collecting data through questionnaires. A total of 80 auditors (respondents) who works in the Office of Audit Board of Indonesia Representative of South Sulawesi were selected as a sample of this study. This study found that client's integrity positively influence validity audit evidence. It indicates that the higher integrity lead to higher validity audit evidence. In contrast, audit risk assessment does not influence validity audit evidence. It indicates that the higher audit risk assessment does not lead to higher influence validity audit evidence. This study also found that client's integrity and audit risk assessment together can increase the validity of audit evidence

Keywords

Integrity client audit risk assessment audit evidence validity.

Article Details

How to Cite
Agus, A. (2021). INTEGRITAS KLIEN, PENILAIAN RISIKO AUDIT DAN KEABSAHAN BUKTI AUDIT. JURNAL FAIRNESS, 5(3), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.33369/fairness.v5i3.15319
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdolmohammadi, M. J., and V. D. Owhoso. 2000. Auditors’ Ethical Sensitivity and the
  2. Assessment of the Likelihood of Fraud. Managerial Finance Vol. 26, pp. 21-32.
  3. AICPA (Americant Institute of Certified Publik Accountants) 1997. Statements on Auditing
  4. Standards No.82, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. New
  5. York: AICPA.
  6. AICPA (Americant Institute of Certified Publik Accountants) 2001. AICPA Code of
  7. Professional Conduct. http://www.aicpa.org/about/code/index.htm.
  8. Anderson, U. And Marchant. 1999. The Auditors’ Assessment of the Competence and
  9. Integrity of Auditee Personal. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory Vol.8
  10. pp. 1-16
  11. Apostolou, B., J. M. Hassel, S. A Webber, and G. E. Sumners. 2001. The Relative
  12. Importance of Management Fraud Risk factors. Behaviour Research in Accounting
  13. Vol. 13 pp. 1-24
  14. Assegaf. 2005. Pengaruh Integritas Klien dan penilaian Resiko Audit terhadapKinerja
  15. Kantor Akuntan Publik: Studi pada Akuntan Publik di Daerah Istimewa
  16. yogyakarta. Jurnal Akuntansi dan bisnis, 5(2) : 91-106.
  17. Ayers, S. And Kaplan, S (2003), Review Partners, Reactions to Contact Partner Risk
  18. Judgments of Prospective Clients, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory,
  19. Vol. 21, pp. 29-49
  20. Beaulieu, P. R. 2001. The effects of Judgments of New Clients’ Integrity Upon Risk
  21. Judgment, Audit Evidence, and Fee. Auditing: A Journal of practice and theory
  22. Vol.20, pp. 85-99
  23. Bedard, J. C., and L. E. Graham. 2002. The Effects of Decision and Orientation on Risk
  24. Factor Identification and Audit Test Planning. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and
  25. Theory Vol.21, pp. 39-56
  26. Bell, Timothy B., Mark E. Peecher and Ira Solomon, 2005. The 21st Century Public
  27. Company, Audit Conceptual Elements of KPMG’s Global Audit Methodology.
  28. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
  29. Bernardi, R. A. And Arnold, D. F (1994), The Influence of Client Integrity and Competence
  30. and Auditor Characteristics on Materiality Estimates, Accounting Review. Vol. 1,
  31. pp 1-23
  32. Caster, P., and K. V. Pncus. 1996. An Empirical Test of Bentham’s Theory of the
  33. Persuasiveness of Evidence. Auditing: a Journal of practice and theory. Vol. 15,
  34. pp.1-22
  35. Cohen D., and R. E. Nisbett. 1994 Self-Protection and Culture of Honor: Explaining
  36. Southern Violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol. 20, pp. 551-
  38. Church, B. K., J. J. McMillan, and A. Schneider. 1998. The Effect of Risk Factors and
  39. Decision Frame on Internal Auditor’ Consideration of Fraud Explanations.
  40. Advance Accounting. Vol. 16, pp. 75-88
  41. Dowell, Richard S., Robert S. Goldfarb, and William B. Griffith. 1998. Economic Man as
  42. Moral Individual. Economic Inquiry. Vol.36, pp. 645-653
  43. Dwight. L. Sneathen, Jr., Tim Kiziran, Brian W. Mayhew. 2003. The Impact of
  44. Management Integrity on Audit Planning and Evidence. Auditing: A Journal of
  45. Practice dan Theory.
  46. Friedberg, Asher. 1998. Ethical Aspects of Internal Auditing, Journal of Business Ethics.
  47. Vol.8, pp.895-904
  48. Fearnley, Stella, Beattie, V. A., and Richard Brandt, 2005. Auditor Independence and Audit
  49. Risk: A Reconceptualization. Journal of International Accounting Research. Vol. 4
  50. Gorman, Mechael. M. 1993, Hume’s Theory of Belief. Hume Studies, Vol. 19, pp 89-102
  51. Ghozali, Imam. 2006. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS. Undip.
  52. Semarang.
  53. Hironori Fukukawa and Theodore J. Mock, 2011. Audit Risk Assessments Using Belief
  54. versus Probability. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, American
  55. Accounting Association. Vol. 30, pp. 75-99
  56. Hirst, E. D. 1994. Auditor’ Sensitivity to Source Reliability. Journal of Accounting
  57. Research. Vol. 1, pp. 113-126
  58. Ikatan Akuntan Publik Indonesia (IAPI), 2013. Kode Etik Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia.
  59. www.iaiglobal.or.id
  60. Jenny Goodwin, J. 1999. The Effects of Source Integrity and Consistency of Evidence on
  61. Auditors’ Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. Vol. 18, No.2
  62. Johnstone, K. M., M. H. Sutton, and T. D. Warfield. 2001. Antecedents and Consequences
  63. of Independence Risk: Framework for Analysis. Accounting Horizons. Vol. 15,
  64. No.1, pp. 1-18
  65. Joyce, E.J., and G. C. Biddle. 1991. Anchoring and Adjustment in Probabilistic Inference in
  66. Auditing. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol. 1, pp. 120-145
  67. Kathleen Howk. 2008. Reecognizing Excellence in Corporate Integrity on Difficult Times,
  68. Integrity Matters More than Ever. www.auditintegrity.com
  69. Kaplan. E. Steven. And PMJ. Reckers. 1994. An Empirical Examination of Auditor Initial
  70. Planning Processes. Auditing: Journal of Practice and Theory. Vol. 4, pp.1-19
  71. Kelly, C. F. 1991. Auditor’s Percetion of the Audit Process. Working paper, Deakin
  72. University, Australia
  73. Khalil, Elias L. Integrity, Shame and Self-Rationalization. Working paper, Vassar College
  74. Economics
  75. Lin, Z., and F. Chen. 2000. Asian Financial Crisis and Accounting Reforms in China.
  76. Managerial Finance. Ed. 5, pp.63-79
  77. Levy, P. E, Albright, M. D, Cawley, B. D, and Williams, J. R. 1995. Situational and
  78. Individual Determinants of Feedback Seeking: A Closer Look at the Process.
  79. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol 62, pp. 23-37
  80. Libby, R. 1981. Accounting and Human Information Processing: Theory and Applications,
  81. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
  82. Libby, R. And Lewis, B. L. 1992. Human Information Processing Research in Accounting:
  83. The State of the Art in 1982. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 7,
  84. pp.231-285
  85. Loebbecke, J. K, M. M. Eining, and J. J. Willingham. 1999. Auditors’ Experience with
  86. Material Irregularities: Frequency, Nature, and Detectability. Auditing: A Journal
  87. of Practice and Theory. Vol. 9, pp. 1-28
  88. Messier, W. F, S. J. Kachelmeier, and K. L. Jensen. 2001. An Experimental Assessment of
  89. Recent Professional Developments in Nonstatistical Audit Sampling Guidance.
  90. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. Vol. 20, pp. 81-96
  91. Moutz R. K., and Sharaf. H. A., 1996. The Philosophy of Auditing. Book Reviews, New
  92. York Certified Public Accountant.
  93. Palmrose, Z 1988. An Analysis of Auditor Litigation and Audit Service Quality. The
  94. Accounting Review. Vol. 63, pp. 55-73
  95. Mathiews and Zajac. 1999. The Audit Risk Model, Business Risk and Audit Planning
  96. Decisions. The Accounting Review. Vol. 23. Pp. 56-78
  97. Shafer, Glenn. 2000. Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Belief Functions.
  98. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. Vol. 3, pp. 1-40
  99. Srivastava, Rajendra P., and Shafer, Glenn R. 1992. Belief-Function Formulas for Audit
  100. Risk. The Accounting Review. Vol. 67, pp. 249-170
  101. Stigler, George J., and Gary S. Becker. 1997. DE Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. American
  102. Economic Review. Vol. 67, pp. 76-90
  103. Stephani F. Watson, 2004. The Effect of the Implicit Theory of Integrity on an Inernal
  104. Auditors Assesment of Management Fraud Risk, Louisian State University and
  105. Agricultural and Mechanical College.
  106. Tubbs, R. M., W. F. Messier, and W. R. Knechel. 2000. Recency Effects in the Auditor’s
  107. Belief-Revision Process. The Accounting Review. Vol. 65, pp. 452-460.
  108. Tullock, Gordon. 1995. Adam Smith and the Prisoners’ Dilemma. Quarterly Journal of
  109. Economics.
  110. Ulfert Gronewold, 2006. The Probative Value of Audit Evidence The State of the Art and
  111. Avenues Towards a General Theory, Business Administration, Accounting and
  112. Auditing. Vol. 89
  113. Van Den Acker, Carine. 1999. A Belief-Function Model for the Representation and the
  114. Combination of Uncertain Audit Evidence. Intelligent Systems in Accounting,
  115. Finance and Management. Vol. 8, pp. 43-63
  116. Van Peursem, K. A., and Pratt, M. J. 1993. Difficul and Critical Auditing Procedures: New
  117. Zealand Auditor Perception. Accounting Forum. Vol. 16, pp. 43-63
  118. William A. Kerler III. 2005. The Effects Auditors Trust in Client Management on Auditors’
  119. Judgment. Dissertation of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
  120. University.
  121. Wright, A. 1992. The Impact of Selected Environmental Case on Audit Disclosure
  122. Judgment. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Vol. 3, pp. 273-290
  123. Zimbleman, M. F. 1997. The Effects of SAS No. 82 on Auditors’ Attention to Fraud risk
  124. Factors and Planning Decisions. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol 35, pp. 75-97