THE EFFECT OF TIME BUDGET PRESSURE AND AUDIT RISK ON AUDIT QUALITY WITH
AUDITOR'S ETHICS AS A MODERATING VARIABLE
Ayu Mastuti Wijayanti Suparto, Argya Veda Hardhanie
Universitas Trisakti,
Indonesis
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
|
KEYWORDS Time Bugdet Pressure, Audit Risk, Audit Quality, Auditor
Ethics |
ABSTRACT Relevant
and reliable financial statements are information characteristics that are
important for stakeholders in making decisions. The public accounting
profession is a profession of public trust. In order to support his
professionalism as a public accountant, in carrying out his audit duties, the
auditor should be guided by the Professional Standards of Public Accountants
(SPAP) set by the Indonesian Institute of Accountants (IAI). The motivation
of researchers to conduct this research is because audit quality is currently
very important for companies and shareholders. After all, many of the audits
carried out by Public Accounting Firms do not carry out audit procedures and
do not carry out the auditor's ethics that should be in conducting audits so
that users of financial statements do not trust them. This study uses
quantitative data with survey research. The results show that Time Budget
Pressure has an effect on Audit Quality with Auditor Ethics as a moderating
variable, while Audit Risk has no effect on audit quality with Auditor Ethics
as a moderating variable. |
INTRODUCTION
Financial statements are an
important element for internal and external parties in the company as
information about the company's financial condition, which then is used as a
basis for decision making (Singgih,
2010). According
to the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) in Singgih and Bawono
(2010), the two most important characteristics that must be present in
financial statements are relevant (relevance) and reliable (reliable). Relevant
and reliable financial statements are information characteristics that are
important for stakeholders in making decisions.
The public accounting
profession is a profession of public trust. In order to support his
professionalism as a public accountant, in carrying out his audit duties, the
auditor should be guided by the Professional Standards of Public Accountants
(SPAP) set by the Indonesian Institute of Accountants (IAI), namely general
standards, fieldwork standards, and reporting standards. Where the general
standard is a reflection of the personal qualities that must be possessed by an
auditor which requires the auditor to have sufficient technical expertise and
training in carrying out audit procedures. Meanwhile, fieldwork standards and
reporting standards regulate the auditor in terms of data collection and other
activities carried out during the audit and require the auditor to prepare a
report on the audited financial statements as a whole (Elfarini, 2007).
The time budget pressure
experienced by the auditor will also lead to individual stress due to an
imbalance between tasks and the available time budget. The individual stress
will have an impact on the audit carried out not being optimal. The worst
impact of time budget pressure is that the auditor plans all the necessary
procedures and signs these procedures without actually carrying them out (Said and Munandar, 2018). In these conditions, the auditor may not be able to detect fraud if he
does not carry out important procedures, so it will have an impact on the
quality of the audit that will be produced. Seeing the negative impact that
will affect audit quality, it is important to know the effect of time budget
pressure that has been carried out by Khadilah et al. (2015) and Hutabarat (2012) who state that there is a positive effect of time
budget pressure on audit quality.
Audit quality is inseparable
from the possibility of Audit Risk. Risk in the auditing process is a certain
level of uncertainty in the conduct of the audit, where the auditor realizes
that in the conduct of the audit there is uncertainty about the competence of
evidence, the effectiveness of the client's internal control structure, and
uncertainty whether the financial statements have indeed been presented fairly
after the audit is completed. Johnson, Jamal, & Glen Berryman (1989) and Cahyadi (2013) suggest that considering audit risk is one of the important concepts in
the application of auditing standards, particularly fieldwork standards, and
reporting standards to determine the nature or type, timing, and extent of
audit procedures. The audit objective is to reduce this audit risk to a low
level that can be accepted by auditors Tuanakotta (2013) and Diana & Azlina
(2016). This risk represents an uncertainty faced by the
auditor where the possibility of evidence that has been collected by the
auditor is not able to detect material misstatements and will have an impact on
the quality of the resulting audit.
Another indicator is auditor
ethics, which is an accountant based on discipline, dedication, and trust.
Without the three bases, the accounting profession will be less rewarded. The
main capital of accountants is trust and expertise. There are many things to
take care of. Without accountants, the country would be disorganized and
companies would not know what to do. Maintain the ethics of the accounting
profession, including maintaining confidentiality, it must be done properly to
gain public trust. Accountants are a profession that holds confidentiality.
Therefore, many things are certainly kept. Without accountants, the country
would be disorganized and companies would not know what to do. Maintain the
ethics of the accounting profession, including maintaining confidentiality, it
must be done properly to gain public trust. Accountants are a profession that
holds confidentiality.
The value of auditing depends
on the public's perception of the independence of the auditor. Auditor
independence in the Public Accounting Firm is an interesting thing to study
because it is the main and most important factor that determines the quality in
the implementation of the audit of the Public Accounting Firm to be able to
achieve the goals that have been set. Public accountants must of course comply
with the professional code of ethics that regulates the behavior of public
accountants in carrying out their professional practice, both with fellow
members and with others.
Agency Theory
Agency theory is a form of
relationship between principal and agent. An agency relationship occurs when
the owner (principal) employs another person called management (agent) to carry
out the work and delegates decision-making authority to the agent concerned (Brigham and Daves, 2007). According to Indah (2010), the owner wants to know all information, including the activities of agents,
related to their investments or funds in the company. This is done by asking
the agent for an accountability report. Based on the report, the owner assesses
the agent's performance, but what often happens is the agent's tendency to take
actions that make the report look good so that its performance is considered
good. The independent auditor's opinion on the financial statements that have
been prepared by the agent is expected to be a material consideration for the
owner to make a decision. On this basis, an independent auditor who has a high
level of credibility will be more trusted by the owner to be able to examine
the financial statements independently, to produce the right economic
decisions.
Audit Quality
����������� Audit quality according to Tandiontong (2016) is all the probabilities of an auditor in determining and reporting
fraud that occurs in the client's or company's accounting system. Based on the
above understanding, audit quality is the result of quality work that comes
from the quality of the auditors themselves. A qualified auditor can assure
that there is no material misstatement or fraud in the company's financial
statements to produce reliable information that describes the actual situation.
Users of financial statements will make decisions.
Time Budget Pressure
����������� De Zoort and Lord (1997) in Simanjuntak
(2008), mention, that when facing time budget pressure, the
auditor will respond in two ways, namely; functional and dysfunctional. The
functional type is the auditor's behavior to work better and use time as well
as possible, this is also following the opinion expressed by Glover (1997) in Simanjuntak (2008), which says that time budget is identified as a
potential to improve audit assessment (audit judgment) by encouraging auditors
to prefer relevant information and avoid irrelevant judgments. The
dysfunctional type of auditor behavior proposed by Rhode (1978) in Simanjuntak
(2008), says that time budget
pressure has the potential to cause behavior to decrease audit quality.
Audit Risk
����������� According
to Amir Abadi Jusuf (2013) audit risk is the possibility that the auditor will wrongly conclude
after carrying out an adequate audit that the financial statements have been
stated fairly when in reality they contain material
misstatements. Audit risk is unavoidable because auditors collect evidence only
based on their tests and because fraud is so well-hidden that it is difficult
to detect. An auditor may comply with all auditing standards but still, fail to
disclose material misstatements due to fraud. The main components of audit risk
in Tuanakotta (2015) are as follows:
1.
Inheren Risk, is the
susceptibility of an assertion (regarding the type of transaction, account
balance, or disclosure) to misstatement that may be material, alone or in
combination, without taking into account related controls.
2.
Control Risk, that
a misstatement could occur in an assertion (regarding transactions, account
balances, or disclosures) and could be material, alone or in combination with
other misstatements, not prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis
by the entity's internal control
3.
Detection Risk, is
a function of the effectiveness of audit procedures and their implementation by
the auditor. This risk arises partly because of the uncertainty that exists
when the auditor does not examine 100% of the account balance or class of
transactions, and partly because of other uncertainties that exist, even if the
account balance or class of transactions is checked 100%.
Auditor Ethics
����������� The ethics of the auditor profession has been
regulated in the 2018 IAPI where five auditor principles must be understood and
adhered to, namely the principles of integrity, objectivity, accuracy and
prudence, confidentiality, and professional behavior. Based on ethics and
individual beliefs, audit decisions can be made appropriately. When carrying
out their professional duties, auditors must adhere to the existing code of
ethics so that an auditor can work with full integrity to have the high trust
of the public. Arens et al (2008) suggests that there are six ethical principles,
namely:
1.
Responsibility
2.
Public Interest
3.
Integrity
4.
Objectivity and
Independence
5.
Thoroughness
6.
Scope and Nature
of Services
Conceptual Framework
����������� Based
on the theory and research that has been done previously, several variables are
used as independent variables that will affect the dependent variable of audit
quality, including Time Budget Pressure, Audit Risk, and Auditor Ethics.
H1
Figure 1
Research Model
METHOD�� RESEARCH
Population and Sample
����������� The
population in this study is independent auditor who works at a Public
Accounting Firm. The data used in this study is primary data. Primary data was
obtained by using a list of questions (questionnaires) that have been
structured to collect information from the auditor. The Source of data used in
this study is the total score obtained from the questionnaire.
Research Variable
����������� The
dependent variable studied is Audit Quality. The independent variable used
consists of 2 variables, namely Time Budget Pressure, and Audit Risk. While the
moderating variable is Auditor Ethics.
Audit Quality (Y)
����������� According to Tandiontong (2016), audit quality is
the probability of an auditor finding and reporting an error or fraud that
occurs in the client's accounting system. The independence indicators adapted
from Nurlaely's (2010) research used in
this study are:
1.
Tenure
2.
Pressure from
Clients
3.
Review by Third
Party
Time Budget Pressure (X1)
����������� Time
budget pressure is the effect of time budget pressure that can damage and
disrupt the audit process carried out by an auditor which can result in the
auditor making mistakes in the audit process because there is too little time
to carry out the audit process and the auditor is not able to use time
efficiently in the audit process. Time Budget Pressure indicators adapted from Nurlaely (2010) research used in this study are:
1.
Understanding of time
budget
2.
Responsible for
time budget
3.
Performance
appraisal from superiors
4.
Frequency of time
budget revisions
Audit Risk (X2)
����������� Audit risk is the risk of giving an inappropriate
audit opinion (expressing an inappropriate audit opinion) on financial statements
that are materially misstated (Tuanakotta, 2015).
Types of audit risk:
1.
Inherent Risk
2.
Control Risk
3.
Detection Risk
Auditor Ethics (X3)
����������� The
auditor must comply with the established code of ethics. The audit
implementation must refer to the audit standard and must comply with the code
of ethics which is an integral part of the audit standard. Auditor Ethics
indicators used in this study are:
1.
Responsibilities
of auditors
2.
Public interest of
an auditor
3.
Auditor Integrity
4.
Objectivity and Independence
5.
Accuracy or
thoroughness
6.
Scope and nature
of services
Data analysis method
Descriptive Statistical Analysis
����������� This descriptive statistic provides an overview of the
data in the form of an average value (mean), standard deviation, maximum, and minimum.
Data Quality Test
����������� An
instrument test is a test conducted on the instruments used in this study. The
instrument used in this study was a questionnaire. To declare this instrument
suitable for use, this instrument must pass the validity and reliability tests.
Classic assumption test
Normality Test
����������� A good regression model is a normally distributed
regression model This normality test is conducted to determine whether in the
regression model, the independent variable and the dependent variable have a normal
data distribution or not. The test that can be done to test the normality of
the residuals is to look at the normal P-P Plot of regression standardized
residual graph. In addition, there are other tests that can be performed,
namely the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) statistical test.
Multicollinearity Test
����������� Multicollinearity
test can be done in 2 ways, namely by looking at the VIF (Variance Inflation
Factors) and the tolerance value generated by the independent variables. If VIF
> 10 and tolerance value < 0.10, then multicollinearity symptoms occur (Ghozali, 2011).
Autocorrelation Test
����������� This
autocorrelation test was conducted to determine whether the regression model
correlated the current error (t) and the error in the previous period (t-1). To
determine the presence or absence of autocorrelation, the Durbin-Watson test
will be used.
Hypothesis Test
����������� In
testing hypotheses one, three, and five, multiple regression tests were used,
while to test hypotheses two, four, and six, to determine whether the auditor's
ethics variable was a moderating variable, it was used for moderated regression
analysis (MRA).
Interaction Test Analysis of Moderating Variable
����������� This
study conducted an interaction test to test the moderating variable in the form
of auditor ethics by using Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA). This
interaction test is used to determine the extent to which the interaction of
auditor ethics variables can affect time budget pressure, competence, and
independence on audit quality. The MRA equation model used:
Where:
Y�������� = Audit
Quality
a��������� =
Constanta
b��������� =
Regression Coeffisient
X1������ = Time
Budget Pressure
X2������ = Audit
Risk
X3������ =
Auditor Ethics
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Data Quality Test Analysis
����������� After the data is collected, completeness is selected
for analysis. The next step is to test the validity and reliability of the
data. Validity and reliability testing was carried out as a whole on all
question items used to measure research variables.
Data Validity Test
����������� In
this study, the data validity test was used with person correlation analysis
through the SPSS application. The hypothesis of the data validity test is as
follows:
𝛼 = 0.1
Decision rules: 𝐻0 rejected if 𝑝 − 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 < 𝛼 = 0.1
Table 1
Variable Time Budget Pressure Validity Test
|
No |
Kode Item/Pertanyaan |
Correlation Coefficient |
P-Value |
Validitas |
|
1 |
X1 |
0.590 |
0.001 |
Valid |
|
2 |
X2 |
0.567 |
0.001 |
Valid |
|
3 |
X3 |
0.459 |
0.011 |
Valid |
|
4 |
X4 |
0.642 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
5 |
X5 |
0.720 |
0.000 |
Valid |
Table 2
Variable Detection Risk Validity Test
|
No |
Kode Item/Pertanyaan |
Correlation Coefficient |
P-Value |
Validitas |
|
1 |
X1 |
0.837 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
2 |
X2 |
0.781 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
3 |
X3 |
0.145 |
0.446 |
Invalid |
Table 3
Variable Control Risk Validity Test
|
No |
Kode Item/Pertanyaan |
Correlation Coefficient |
P-Value |
Validitas |
|
1 |
X1 |
0.951 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
2 |
X2 |
0.921 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
3 |
X3 |
0.822 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
4 |
X4 |
0.917 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
5 |
X5 |
0.938 |
0.000 |
Valid |
Table 4
Variable Inheren Risk
Validity Test
|
No |
Kode Item/Pertanyaan |
Correlation Coefficient |
P-Value |
Validitas |
|
1 |
X1 |
0.491 |
0.006 |
Valid |
|
2 |
X2 |
0.863 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
3 |
X3 |
0.653 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
4 |
X4 |
0.901 |
0.000 |
Valid |
Table 5
Variable Kualitas Audit
Validity Test
|
No |
Kode Item/Pertanyaan |
Correlation Coefficient |
P-Value |
Validitas |
|
1 |
X1 |
0.709 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
2 |
X2 |
0.808 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
3 |
X3 |
0.698 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
4 |
X4 |
0.744 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
5 |
X5 |
0.718 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
6 |
X6 |
0.731 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
7 |
X7 |
0.751 |
0.000 |
Valid |
Table 6
Variable Control Risk Validity Test
|
No |
Kode Item/Pertanyaan |
Correlation Coefficient |
P-Value |
Validitas |
|
1 |
X1 |
0.775 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
2 |
X2 |
0.576 |
0.001 |
Valid |
|
3 |
X3 |
0.694 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
4 |
X4 |
0.680 |
0.000 |
Valid |
|
5 |
X5 |
0.510 |
0.004 |
Valid |
����������� From
the entire table above, there is one question that has a p-value = 0.446 >
0.1 so that H0 is not rejected or in other words, item X3 in the
Detection Risk variable is invalid.
Reliability Test
����������� The
reliability test of the instrument is intended to determine whether the
questionnaire is truly consistent if it is used to measure the same thing over
and over again. Testing on the reliability of the questionnaire was carried out
using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient > 0.60. The results of reliability
testing for each variable are illustrated in the table below:
Table 7
Reliability
Test Instrument Result
|
Variable |
Cronbach�s Alpha |
R Kritis |
Explanation |
|
Time Budget Pressure (X1) |
0,726 |
0,60 |
Reliable |
|
Detection Risk (X2) |
0,680 |
0,60 |
Reliable |
|
Control Risk (X3) |
0.828 |
0.60 |
Reliable |
|
Inherent Risk (X4) |
0.797 |
0.60 |
Reliable |
|
Etika Auditor (X3) |
0,781 |
0,60 |
Reliable |
|
Kualitas Audit (Y) |
0,737 |
0,60 |
Reliable |
Source: Primary Data, 2022.
Based on the table above, it
shows that the variables Time Budget Pressure (X1), Audit Risk (X2), Auditor
Ethics (X3) and Audit Quality (Y) have Cronbach Alpha values > 0.60. Thus,
all of these items are declared reliable.
Classic Asumption Test
Normality Test
����������� By
using the Shapiro Wilk test on R software, the following output is obtained:
Figure 2
Output
Normality Tes
Source: Primary Data, 2022.
Because p-value = 0.3518 >
= 0.05, it can be concluded that H0 is not rejected or in other
words, the residuals are normally distributed, thus fulfilling the assumption
of normality.
Multicollinearity Test
����������� A low
tolerance value is the same as a high VIF value (because VIF = 1/tolerance) the
cutoff value commonly used to indicate the presence of multicollinearity is a
tolerance value 0.10 or the same as a VIF value 10 (Ghozali, 2013). Multicollinearity test results from this study can be
seen from Figure 2 below:
Figure 3
Output
Multicollinearity Test
Source: Primary Data, 2022.
From these results it can be
concluded that there is no multicollinearity between the independent variables.
Autocorrelation Test
����������� Autocorrelation
test is conducted to determine whether there is a correlation between the
residuals or not. The test method used is the Durbin Watson Test (DW Test). The
decision rule of the test is that H0 is rejected if the p-value <α. The
results of the autocorrelation test from this study can be seen in Figure 3
below:
Figure 4
Output
Autocorrelation Test
Source: Primary Data, 2022.
Based on the results of the DW
Test above, the p-value of the test is 0.6993 > = 0.05. Therefore, H0
is not rejected or it can be concluded that there is no autocorrelation between
the residuals.
Hypothesis Test
Multiple Regression Analysis Results
����������� From the regression analysis performed using R Studio,
the results of the data processing can be seen in Figure 5 below:
Figure 5
Hypothesis
Test Result
Source: Primary Data, 2022.
The regression model for
analyzing the effect of Time Budget Pressure and Audit Risk on Audit Quality
with Auditor Ethics as a Moderating Variable is
With:
Y�������� = Audit
Quality
X1������ = Time Bugdet Pressure
X2������ = Audit
Risk
X5������ =
Auditor Ethics
a.
Hypothesis Test 1:
The Effect of Time Budget Pressure on Audit Quality with Auditor Ethics as
moderating
Hypothesis 1
states that Time Bugdet Pressure has a significant
effect, it can be seen from the beta unstandardized coefficient variable which
has a positive value of 0.02339 with a significance level of 0.0102 which is
smaller than = 0.1. This means that it is suspected that some of the auditors
who work eliminate audit procedures that should be carried out due to pressure
from the time budget that has been prepared strictly. When there is an audit
conflict, even though the Time Budget Pressure is strict, auditors who hold
full Auditor Ethics will still tend to carry out important audit procedures
that should be, while auditors who have low audit ethics will be tempted to
omit important audit procedures.
b.
Hypothesis Test 2:
The Effect of Audit Risk on Audit Quality with Auditor Ethics as moderating
Audit risk
moderated by Auditor Ethics variable which has a positive value is 0.00708 with
a significance level of 0.1435 which is greater than = 0.1. In this case, the
Auditor Ethics variable weakens the Audit Risk variable on Audit Quality. This
is presumably because even though an auditor has a lot of experience and is
competent with audit reports, many of the auditors do not follow or obey the
existing auditor ethics. Most auditors are more concerned with existing clients
so as not to decrease, so the auditor will be more concerned with what the
client's request is than following the auditor's code of ethics itself.
T- Test
����������� The partial test using the t-test found that the Time
Budget Pressure has a t-count of 2.762 with a probability of 0.0102 less than a
significance level of 0.05, indicating that Time Budget Pressure has a positive
and significant effect on audit quality. For the Audit Risk variable, a partial
test using the t test was found that Audit Risk has a t-count of 1.507 with a
probability of 0.1435 less than a significance level of 0.05, indicating that
Audit Risk has no positive and significant effect on Audit Quality.
F � Test
����������� F test is used to test whether the resulting model
equation is useful or not. The output of this F test is expected to produce a
statistically significant F value or which indicates a useful model. The
hypotheses of the F test are:
(Useless models)
�:� Not
so (Useful models)
With the decision
rule if p-value <α then H0 will be rejected. The results of
the F test can be seen from Figure 5, the p-value of the test is 0.0004296 <
= 0.05.� Therefore
H0 is rejected or it can be concluded that the model is useful.
Determination Coefficient (R2)
����������� ����������� The coefficient of determination (R2)
essentially measures how far the model's ability to explain the variation of
the dependent variable as a percentage. The value of the coefficient of
determination is between 0 (zero) and 1 (one). A small value of R2
means that the ability of the independent variables in explaining the variation
of the dependent variable is very limited. The calculation results seen from
the picture above obtained an adjusted R2 of 0.3952. Thus the variable Time Budget Pressure and Audit Risk can
explain the 39.5% Audit Quality variable while 60.5% is influenced by variables
other than those studied.
CONCLUSION
From the
results of research and discussion, several conclusions can be drawn as
hypothesis 1 states that Time Budget Pressure has a significant effect on Audit
Quality with professional ethics as a moderating variable, this shows that time
budget pressure faced by auditors can increase stress levels which can affect
the quality of financial audits carried out by auditors. So
the time budget pressure can affect the auditor's attitude which can lead to
poor audit quality.
Hypothesis 2
states that audit risk does not affect audit quality with professional ethics
as a moderating variable, this indicates that the size of audit risk does not
affect audit quality because, by professional ethics, an auditor must remain
professional in carrying out the audit process.
REFERENCES
�Abadi Yusuf, Amir (2013). Audit Pendekatan Terpadu.
Edisi Revisi. Salemba Empat. Jakarta.
Arens, A.A. and Lobbecke (2008). Auditing pendekatan
terpadu. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
Bawono, I.R. and Elisha Muliani Singgih (2010). Faktor-faktor
dalam Diri Auditor dan Kualitas Audit: Studi Pada KAP Big Four di Indonesia.
Brigham, Eungene F (2001). Manajemen Keuangan.
Jakarta: Erlangga.
Cahyadi P. I. G. (2013). Kualitas Audit Kantor
Akuntan Publik Di Baditinjau Dari Time Budget Pressure, Risiko Kesalahan, Dan
Kompleksitas Audit. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Dan Humanika, 2 nomer
2(UNDIKSHA), 765�784.
Dezoort Todd, Allan T Lord. (1997).
A review and synthesisof pressure effects research in accounting. Journal of Accounting literature
Vol.26. Hal. 28,58
Diana, Haugesti, Andreas, & Nur Azlina. (2016).
Pengaruh Tekanan Anggaran, Waktu, Risiko Audit, Locus of Control dan Komitmen
Profesional Terhadap Perilaku Penurunan Kualitas Audit. Jurnal Akuntansi,
Vol. 4, No. 2, April 2016: 176-188.
Ghozali, Imam. (2011). �Aplikasi Analisis
Multivariate Dengan Program ISM SPSS 19�. Semarang : Badan Penerbit UNDIP.
Hutabarat. (2012). Pengaruh Pengalaman, Time Budget Pressure dan Etika Auditor Terhadap Kualitas Audit. Jurnal
Ilmiah ESAI Vol.6 No.1. Januari 2012. ISSN No. 1978-6034.
Johnson, P. E., Jamal, K., & Glen Berryman, R. (1989). Audit judgment research. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
14(1�2), 83�99.
Khadilah, Risma, Purnamasari, Pupung dan Gunawan, Hendra. (2015). Pengaruh Time Budget Pressure, Pengalaman Auditor, Etika Auditor dan
Kompleksitas Audit Terhadap Kualitas Audit. Prosiding Penelitian SPeSIA :
236-243.
Nurlaeli, Fenti. (2010). �Pengaruh Kompetensi,
Independensi Dan Time Budget Pressure Terhadap Kualitas Audit (Studi Pada
Auditor di BPKP Jawa Tengah)�. Skripsi, tidak dipublikasikan. Semarang :
Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Said, L. L., & Munandar, A. (2018). �The Influence of Auditor�s professional
Skepticism and Competence on Fraud Detection : The Role of Time Budget
Pressure. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia. 15(1), 104�120.
Simanjuntak, Piter. (2008).
Pengaruh Time Budget Pressure dan Resiko Kesalahan terhadap Penurunan
Kualitas Audit. Tesis. Universitas Diponegoro Semarang.
Tandiontong, Mathius. (2016). Kualitas Audit dan
Pengukurannya. Bandung.
Tuanakotta, Theodorus, M. (2013). Audit Berbasis ISA
(International Standard on Auditing). Jakarta: Salemba Empat. https://web.iaiglobal.or.id/
Copyright holders:
Ayu Mastuti Wijayanti Suparto, Argya Veda Hardhanie (2023)
First publication right:
Devotion - Journal of Research and Community Service
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International