IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rbs/ijbrss/v9y2020i4p419-425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of quality control system on audit quality: Professional skepticism as the moderator variable

Author

Listed:
  • Khansa Shahibah

    (Accounting Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University, Indonesia)

  • Bambang Hariadi

    (Accounting Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University, Indonesia)

  • Zaki Baridwan

    (Accounting Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University, Indonesia)

Abstract

The objective of this research id to assess the effect of Quality Control System elements. i.e. relevant ethical terms and independency, on audit quality and to identify the moderating role of professional skepticism on the effect of quality control system on audit quality. The population of this research auditor working in Indonesian Big Ten public accounting firms, from which 252 auditors were selected as the sample. Using PLS-based SEM in SmartPLS, this study finds that relevant ethical terms and independency affect audit quality and that professional skepticism moderates the effect of independence on audit quality, but it does not moderate the effect of relevant ethical terms on audit quality. Key Words: Quality control system elements, relevant ethical terms, independency, professional skepticism, audit quality

Suggested Citation

  • Khansa Shahibah & Bambang Hariadi & Zaki Baridwan, 2020. "The effect of quality control system on audit quality: Professional skepticism as the moderator variable," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 9(4), pages 419-425, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:9:y:2020:i:4:p:419-425
    DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i4.782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/782/617
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i4.782
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i4.782?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniels, Bobbie W. & Booker, Quinton, 2011. "The effects of audit firm rotation on perceived auditor independence and audit quality," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 78-82.
    2. Tsui, Judy S. L., 1996. "Auditors' ethical reasoning: Some audit conflict and cross cultural evidence," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 121-133.
    3. Ball, Fiona & Tyler, Jonathan & Wells, Peter, 2015. "Is audit quality impacted by auditor relationships?," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 166-181.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Florio, Cristina, 2024. "A structured literature review of empirical research on mandatory auditor rotation," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Kyoko fukukawa, 2002. "Developing A Framework for EthicallyQuestionable Behavior in Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 99-119, November.
    3. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:51-73 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Astrid Rudyanto, 2017. "Audit Firm Reputation versus Auditor Capability: Their Effect on Audit Quality in Indonesia," GATR Journals afr147, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    5. Haka, Susan F. & Heitger, Dan L., 2004. "International managerial accounting research: A contracting framework and opportunities," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 21-69.
    6. Markus Widmann & Florian Follert & Matthias Wolz, 2021. "On the Political Decision of Audit Market Regulation: Empirical Evidence of Audit Firm Tenure and Maximum Durations within the European Union," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Bryan K. Church & Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Xuejiao Liu, 2020. "The Role of Auditor Narcissism in Auditor–Client Negotiations: Evidence from China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1756-1787, September.
    8. Heinz, Philip & Patel, Chris & Hellmann, Andreas, 2013. "Some theoretical and methodological suggestions for studies examining accountants' professional judgments and earnings management," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 299-311.
    9. Damon Fleming & Chee Chow & Wenbing Su, 2010. "An Exploratory Study of Chinese Accounting Students’ and Auditors’ Audit-specific Ethical Reasoning," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 353-369, July.
    10. Yongmei Liu & Sixuan Chen & Chris Bell & Justin Tan, 2020. "How Do Power and Status Differ in Predicting Unethical Decisions? A Cross-National Comparison of China and Canada," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(4), pages 745-760, December.
    11. Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2018. "Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-21.
    12. Reshma Kumari Tiwari & Jasojit Debnath, 2021. "Joint Provision of Non-audit Services to Audit Clients: Empirical Evidences from India," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 46(3), pages 153-165, September.
    13. Katrin Hummel & Christian Schlick & Matthias Fifka, 2019. "The Role of Sustainability Performance and Accounting Assurors in Sustainability Assurance Engagements," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 733-757, February.
    14. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    15. Melinda Timea FULOP & Nicolae MAGDAS & George Silviu CORDOS, 2019. "Theoretical Background Of Internal And External Environment Of Negotiation," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(21), pages 1-3.
    16. Brennan, Niamh & Kelly, John, 2007. "A study of whistleblowing among trainee auditors," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 61-87.
    17. Houqe, Muhammad Nurul & van Zijl, Tony & Dunstan, Keitha & Karim, A.K.M. Waresul, 2015. "Corporate ethics and auditor choice – international evidence," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 57-65.
    18. Casterella, Jeffrey R. & Johnston, Derek, 2013. "Can the academic literature contribute to the debate over mandatory audit firm rotation?," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 108-116.
    19. Elaine Doyle & Jane Frecknall-Hughes & Barbara Summers, 2014. "Ethics in Tax Practice: A Study of the Effect of Practitioner Firm Size," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 623-641, July.
    20. George Silviu CORDOŞ & Melinda Timea FÜLÖP, 2020. "Debates In The Literature Regarding Audit Reporting," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(22), pages 1-4.
    21. Cynthia Ho & Kylie Redfern, 2010. "Consideration of the Role of Guanxi in the Ethical Judgments of Chinese Managers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(2), pages 207-221, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:9:y:2020:i:4:p:419-425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Umit Hacioglu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbffea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.