FACTORS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT SKEPTICISM: A STUDY OF MAIN AND SUPPORTING INDICATORS

Authors

  • Rizqy Fadhlina Putri Universitas Sumatera Utara
  • Iskandar Muda Universitas Sumatera Utara
  • Sirojuzilam Sirojuzilam Universitas Sumatera Utara
  • Erwin Abu Bakar Universitas Sumatera Utara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29103/icofeb.v1i-.616

Keywords:

professional accountant skepticism, financial statements, main factor, supporting factors

Abstract

Success in completing financial reports is closely related to the auditor's ability to complete tasks well precisely and with thoroughness which will make the quality of the report good. It is necessary to know clearly that in completing the report a professional accountant must be able to know well the conceptual framework for preparing financial reports. The aim of this research is to analyze the influence of critical thinking on documents, competence, ethics, verification of evidence, and asking questions about document information on skepticism and to examine the factor analysis of professional accountant skepticism. The population in this study were all professional accountants and the sample taken by convenience sampling was 30 accountants. The data collection technique uses a Likert scale questionnaire, the independent variable consists of five independent variables including Critical thinking about documents, competence, Ethics, Verification of evidence, and Asking questions about document information, and one dependent variable is Skepticism of Professional Accountants. and data analysis techniques used multiple linear regression and factor analysis. The results obtained show that there is an influence of each variable competency, ethics, and asking questions about document information, thus component 1 will be given the name main factors and component 2 only consists of document verification thus being given the name supporting factors. Thus, it is known that the quality of financial reports is greatly influenced by the skepticism of public accountants and these two factors cannot be separated from the preparation and authenticity of completing financial reports. This is also one of the assessments of partners' trustworthiness in determining accountants in their company.

References

Al-Ansi, A. A. (2022). Is the impact of audit effort on quality of auditors’ performance contingent on virtual audit proficiency? An auditors’ perspective during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2144704

Barth, M. E. (2015). Financial Accounting Research, Practice, and Financial Accountability. Abacus, 51(4), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12057

Che, L., Myllymäki, E. R., & Svanström, T. (2023). Auditors’ self-assessment of engagement quality and the role of stakeholder priority. Accounting and Business Research, 53(3), 335–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2021.2001638

Cheung, K. Y., & Lai, C. Y. (2022). External auditors’ trust and perceived quality of interactions. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2085366

Ciesielski; Weirich. (2016). Current Accounting Issues Facing Chief Accounting and Chief Financial Officers. July(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf

Coffee, J. C. (2019). Why do auditors fail? What might work? What won’t?†. Accounting and Business Research, 49(5), 540–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2019.1611715

Cooke, P. (2023). Rogue auditors: dark motivations of the Big 4 accountants in regional sustainability and the creative economy. European Planning Studies, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2220379

Ek Österberg, E., & de Fine Licht, J. (2023). Beyond auditor and auditee: exploring the governance of performance in eldercare. Public Management Review, 25(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1937686

Farcane, N., Bunget, O. C., Blidisel, R., Dumitrescu, A. C., Deliu, D., Bogdan, O., & Burca, V. (2023). Auditors’ perceptions on work adaptability in remote audit: a COVID-19 perspective. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 36(1), 422–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2077789

Hou, F., Song, W., Sun, L., & Xiong, H. (2023). Does signing auditors’ communist party membership shape audit quality? Evidence from China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 36(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2139740

Kwock, B., Ho, R., & James, M. (2016). The effectiveness of professional scepticism training for auditors in China: evidence from a university in China*. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 4(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/21697213.2016.1196055

Mansur, H., Abdul Rahman, A. A., Meero, A., & Shatnawi, A. (2022). The perceptions of external auditors on the relationship between audit fees and audit quality. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2113203

Minh Duc, L. D., Thi Hoang Yen, N., Hoang Ngoc Thuy, V., Hoang Tien, N., & Hung Anh, D. B. (2019). Enhancing auditors’ independence in auditing enterprises in Vietnam. Cogent Economics and Finance, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1602240

Rautiainen, A., Saastamoinen, J., & Pajunen, K. (2023). Auditors’ perceptions of alternative performance measures–alternative truths and professional skepticism. Accounting in Europe, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2244509

Spencer, M. (2022). Characterising assurance: scepticism and mistrust in cyber security. Journal of Cultural Economy, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2022.2098515

Sugiono. (2020). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitaif dan Research Develompment. Penrbit Alfabeta.

Ta, T. T., Doan, T. N., Pham, D. C., & Tran, H. N. (2022). Factors affecting the professional skepticism of independent auditors in Viet Nam. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2059043

Wahidahwati, W., & Asyik, N. F. (2022). Determinants of Auditors Ability in Fraud Detection. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2130165

Xu, X., Ye, F., & Chen, Y. (2023). The joint effect of investors’ trait scepticism and the familiarity and readability of key audit matters on the communicative value of audit reports. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 11(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21697213.2022.2143687

Downloads

Published

2023-12-30