THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF
EFFICACY, EFFORT, AUDITOR TIME BUDGET PRESSURE AND AUDIT JUDGMENT PERFORMANCE
IN AUDITORS IN INDONESIA
Muhsin
Faculty
of Economics and Business, Universitas Tanjungpura Pontianak, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]
|
KEYWORDS auditor time budget pressure; effort; audit judgment performance |
ABSTRACT This study aims to examine
the relationship between research variables, namely self-efficacy, effort,
auditor time budget pressure and audit judgment performance owned by
Indonesian auditors. The sample in this study is auditors level I to level
VII at BPK Republik Indonesia. Data were obtained by survey methods and
purposive sampling techniques. The data collected in this study amounted to
90 respondents then tested using the SEM analysis technique of the Warp PLS
4.0 program. The results showed that self-efficacy has a positive and
significant effect on effort, self-efficacy has a positive and significant
effect on audit judgment performance, effort has a positive and significant
effect on audit judgment performance, and auditor time budget pressure
positively and significantly affects the relationship between effort and audit
judgment performance. |
INTRODUCTION
Supervision of the use of state spending funds needs to
be done professionally. Badjury (2012) states that every profession must be able to
maintain the dignity and quality of its professional services in order to build
public trust. To build public trust, the behavior of professionals needs to be
regulated so that the quality of their work can be accounted for. Therefore, it
is necessary to have standards and rules of professional ethics so that people
can have confidence in the quality of the work of these professionals.
According to State
Financial Audit Standards (SPKN), BPK (2017) the auditor may
experience pressure and/or conflict while performing his professional duties
from the entity being examined, various levels of government positions, and
other parties that may affect the auditor's objectivity and independence. The
auditor frequently exercises judgment when completing audit assignments in
order to fulfill their duties and maintain a professional demeanor.
Ashton and Ashton (1995) states that audit
judgment research is significantly influential in several fields of applied
science including medicine, law, public policy, and business. The results of
applied research have broadly influenced the practical world. One of the
disciplines in business that has been heavily influenced by judgment is
accounting and auditing. Judgment research applied to accounting and auditing
has evolved over the last 20 years, and will continue to evolve in the future.
State Financial Audit Standards
(SPKN), BPK (2017) stated that oThe examining organization has the
responsibility to ensure that: (1) independence and objectivity are maintained
in all stages of the examination, (2) professional judgment is used in the
planning and implementation of the examination and reporting of the results of
the examination, (3) the inspection is carried out by personnel who have
professional competence and collectively have sufficient expertise and
knowledge, and (4) independent peer-reviews are carried out periodically and
produce a statement, whether the inspection organization's quality control
system is designed and provides adequate assurance in accordance with
inspection standards.
Self-efficacy, which is described as a person's decision
to engage in certain activities or personal goals and then decides individual
actions, has a general influence on the audit process and causes these actions
to create a specific performance. The notion that one is capable of achieving a
goal is referred to as self-efficacy. Several fields, including cognition,
health, and counseling, have examined this idea.
According to the self-efficacy hypothesis, people learn
about their level of self-efficacy from feedback on their work, representations
of them, experiences, methods of persuasion, and physiological indicators. The
most accurate yardstick for measuring success is one's own performance. Failure
has less of an influence once a strong sense of achievement has been created,
although success boosts performance and failure diminishes it (Bandura, 1986).
The ability
of auditors to function in various situations and assess quality depends on
their own efforts to enhance performance (Bonner, 1994). Several motivating
variables have an impact on the auditor's efforts to improve judgment (Bonner, 1994). Two dimensions of
motivational elements are internal motivation and external motivation (Bandura, 1997). While an
individual's external motivation is influenced by events or people outside of
themselves, internal motivation comes from within the person.
The task of
an auditor is not only intricate but also ageless, constantly requiring a huge
amount of time. The auditor may feel under pressure as a result. Auditors must
be able to handle this pressure and finish all existing work within a set
amount of time (Margheim, et
al., 2005).
McDaniel (1990) explained that time pressure is a limitation on performance and is a
source of stress. This will trigger more stress if the work being done may not
be completed. Time pressure that causes stress will result in decreased
effectiveness in the performance of audit tasks.
Previous Research and Hypothesis
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive
theory, according to Robbins (2006) creates a framework
for comprehending, projecting, and accounting for human action. According to
this idea, human behavior results from the interaction of personal, social, and
environmental elements. The social cognition theory is used to recognize and
forecast both individual and group behavior as well as to determine the most
effective ways to modify it. This theory has a lot to do with one's development
as a good person. According to this hypothesis, learning, information,
experience, and personal traits all play a role in development.
Jones (1989) suggests that it may be unnecessary to vary
behavior from situation to situation. This means that behavior is the control
of the situation but also that the auditor can interpret the situation
differently and the same form of stimulus provokes a different response from a
different auditor or comes from the same auditor at a different time. Social
cognitive theory is helpful for understanding and predicting both the behavior
of individuals and groups and identifying methods by which behavior is modified
or changed.
According to Bandura (1977), learning occurs when people observe and
imitate other people's behavior and attitudes. In both formal and informal
settings, this notion can be largely accepted in social, communicative,
informational, and instructional education phases.
Self-efficacy, also referred to as
"social cognitive theory" or "social learning theory," is
the auditor's sense of his or her own ability to complete a task. The auditor's
confidence in his capacity to do a task increases with his level of
self-effectiveness. Hence, auditors believe that in challenging circumstances,
people with low self-efficacy likely to limit their efforts or give up, whereas
people with strong self-efficacy will work harder to overcome obstacles. Moreover, auditors who have high self-efficacy seem
to respond to negative feedback with higher effort and motivation.
Relationship of Self-Efficacy and Effort
Self-efficacy, often
known as "refers to the auditor's belief that he is competent of doing a
task," is a concept from social cognitive theory or social learning
theory. The auditor's confidence in his capacity to do a task increases with
his level of self-effectiveness. Hence, auditors believe that in challenging
circumstances, people with low self-efficacy likely to limit their efforts or
give up, whereas people with strong self-efficacy will work harder to overcome
obstacles. Moreover, auditors with high levels of self-efficacy appear to
respond to unfavorable criticism by exerting more effort and motivation.
Self-efficacy,
according to Lai and Chen (2012) influences
performance and work satisfaction in a favorable way. Performance and job
satisfaction are enhanced by effort. According to social cognitive theory, the
self-regulatory mechanism that controls human motivation and behavior uses
self-efficacy as its triggering center (Bandura, 1986).
According to Bandura (1997) there is a strong
correlation between self-efficacy and job-related performance, including sales,
productivity in research, learning and task-related achievement, career choice,
and others. Stajkovic and
Luthans (1998b) have also
demonstrated evidence of a high positive association between self-efficacy and
job-related performance using a meta-analysis of 114 empirical investigations.
According to their research, self-efficacy is responsible for roughly 28% of
improvements in work-related performance.
Performance rewards
enable the auditor to put up more effort during audit tasks (Sanusi and Iskandar, 2007). According to Chang, et al. (1997) justification
functions as a non-financial performance reward that lengthens the effort
period. It stands to reason that when auditors receive a reward for completing
a duty, they should exert more effort to do so. On the basis of the debate
above, the following hypothesis is put forth:
H1: Self-Efficacy has a
positive effect on Effort
Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Audit Judgment
Performance
Social cognitive
theory shows that there are four ways to increase the self-effectiveness of an
auditor, namely enactive, examples carried out by other individual auditors,
verbal persuasion, and emergence. Thus each individual auditor will feel they
are capable of carrying out the assigned audit task to them, and raise audit
judgment performance (Robbins, 2006).
Organizational research has paid a lot of
attention to the personality attribute of self-efficacy. The belief a person
has in his or her ability to plan and carry out the actions required to attain
the intended results is known as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (1997),
each person is in charge of his or her own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
The way a person views himself has a significant impact on his or her capacity
for control. When done properly, a someone who believes they are very capable
will put up the necessary work and achieve achievement (Bandura, 1986,1997).
According to the social cognitive paradigm,
performance is directly impacted by self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986,1997;Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998b). According to social cognitive theory, the
self-regulatory mechanism that controls human motivation and behavior uses
self-efficacy as its triggering center (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy improves performance in a
range of job environments, including education, training, sport, and
management, according to earlier studies.
According to Bandura (1997) there is a strong correlation between
self-efficacy and job-related performance, including sales, productivity in
research, learning and task-related achievement, career choice, and others. Stajkovic and Luthans (1998b) have also demonstrated evidence of a high
positive association between self-efficacy and job-related performance using a
meta-analysis of 114 empirical investigations. Their study found that self-efficacy accounts
for about 28 percent of improvements in work-related performance.
Self-efficacy is the belief in one's ability
to succeed. It is thought to have an impact on behavior, effort, and tenacity
in the face of challenges and setbacks (Bandura, 1997). Individual talents frequently inspire
sufficient effort to result in superior outcomes (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998b). Similar to this, it is anticipated that
increased self-efficacy will improve audit judgment performance. Because they
can do their work better, people with high levels of self-efficacy constantly
review their plans of action and incorporate their capabilities when beginning
their initiatives strategies (Gist and Mitchell, 1992;Wood, et al., 2000). A highly competent (self-efficacy) auditor
is stated to put forth the necessary effort to produce a successful outcome (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998a). On the other side,
ineffective individual auditors have a propensity to give up too soon and
obstruct task completion (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998a). Auditors with
strong self-efficacy are anticipated to perform better than auditors with low
self-efficacy in the context of audit judgment.
According to the description, that
self-efficacy will also have a favorable impact on the effectiveness of audit
judgment. This study found gaps in the association between self-efficacy and
audit judgment performance because no study has adequately addressed this
problem. This study anticipates a favorable correlation between audit judgment
performance and self-efficacy. From the discussion above, the following
hypothesis is put forth:
H2: Self-Efficacy has a
positive effect on Audit Judgment Performance
Effort Relationship and Audit Judgment Performance
It is possible to
increase the amount of cognitive effort put forth on a task by increasing its
duration (for example, by working longer hours), its intensity (for example, by
working harder), or both (Cloud, 1997). According to the
social cognitive theory, the auditor's confidence in his ability to complete a
task is discussed. Auditors believe that people with low self-efficacy likely
to limit their efforts or give up in trying circumstances, whereas people with
strong self-efficacy will work harder to overcome difficulties. Also, auditors
with high self-efficacy appear to respond to negative criticism with more drive
and effort, whereas auditors with low self-efficacy appear to respond to
negative feedback by exerting less effort.
As a tool that can be
designed by individual auditors to motivate or attempt to perform well in the
audit assignments completed, incentives can be used to improve audit judgment
performance (Libby and Lipe, 1992;Bonner and
Sprinkle, 2002). Prior empirical accounting
research demonstrate that performance incentives lead individual auditors to
expend more effort on audit tasks (Sanusi and Iskandar, 2007). Justification is a non-monetary
performance incentive that lengthens duration and effort (Chang, et al., 1997). It stands to reason
that when auditors receive a reward for completing a duty, they should exert
more effort to do so. From the discussion above, the following hypothesis is
put forth:
H3: Effort has a positive effect on Audit
Judgment Performance
The Effect of Budgetary Time Pressure on the
Relationship between Effort and Audit Judgment Performance
There are two types
of time pressure: time deadline pressure (where the auditor is needed to
complete audit assignments on time) and time budget pressure (where the auditor
is required to work efficiently within the parameters of the time budget that
has been created) (Herningsih, 2001). In a public
accounting firm, the budget serves as a basis for projecting audit fees,
allocating staff to each position, and assessing the performance of auditor
staff (Wagoner and
Cashel, 1991). The Public
Accounting Company places time constraints on its auditors in an effort to
lower audit fees. The cost of executing the audit decreases with the speed of
the audit. The auditor must perform the assignment as
quickly as feasible while adhering to a predetermined time limit due to the
time pressure that is there. Obviously, if the audit procedures are carried out
under non-time-pressured settings, the outcomes will not be the same as when
they are under time pressure. The auditor has the option to forego or even end
the audit process in order to adhere to the time limit that has been
established.
According to previous studies, time constraints force auditors to
frequently wrap up audit procedures early. According to Wagoner and Cashell (1991), 48% of respondents concur that time constraints
have a detrimental effect on auditor performance, and 31% of respondents
acknowledge that too much time pressure will cause the auditor to halt the
audit process. Arnold, et al. (2000) found that the
percentage of errors in conducting an audit would be greater under conditions
of time pressure, which is equal to 32%, greater than under normal conditions
which amounted to 24.8%. Study Alderman and Deitrick (1982) states that more
than 51% of auditors agree that time budget has a significant influence on
audit performance. Shapeero, et al. (2005) found that as
budgetary tightness increases, the practice of premature termination of audit
procedures also increases. The results of these studies do not match the
results of the findings by Margheim and Pany (1986) which revealed that
time pressure had no impact on the occurrence of premature termination or other
audit quality reduction behaviors. To determine the effect of time pressure on
the occurrence of premature termination of audit procedures (Weningtyas, 2006). Based on the discussion above, the
following hypotheses can be drawn:
H4: Auditor Time Budget
Pressure affects the relationship between Effort and Audit Judgment Performance
RESEARCH METHOD
The population in this study are auditors who work at the
Office of the Supreme Audit Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, Central
Jakarta. The sample in this study are auditors who occupy the position of first
examiner, junior examiner, middle examiner, and principal examiner, taking into
account the consideration that most (about 70%) of BPK RI auditors are in the
Jakarta Head Office (Widayanti and Subekti, 2001), and auditors who work as
examiners at the level of Main Auditor for State Finance (Auditama) I to VII.
The sampling technique in this study was non-probability
or non-random with the type (purposive sampling), namely the selection of
samples with a specific purpose or target in selecting non-random samples.
Where one type of (purposive sampling) is sample selection based on judgment
(judgment sampling) by using certain considerations that are adjusted to the
research objectives or research problems developed because researchers realize
that those who have good and correct information regarding audit judgment are
auditors/examiners (Indriantoro and Supomo, 2002). A total of 285 questionnaires were
distributed, 198 questionnaires were returned, but only 90 respondents' data
could be analyzed further. The data in this study were tested using the SEM
analysis technique of the Warp PLS 4.0 program.
Research Variable
Self-Efficacy
An internal drive
that might influence one's belief in or capacity to plan and carry out the
actions necessary to reach the desired level of performance is known as a
self-efficacy variable (Bandura, 1997). Eight instrument
items have been designed by Chen, et al. (2001) to measure the degree
of self-efficacy. Participants had to either "Strongly disagree"
(score 1) or "Strongly agree" on a seven-point Likert scale for each
response (score 10). High self-efficacy is indicated by a high score. 8
question items on a scale from 1 to 10.
Effort
The concept of the effort variable states
that it is possible to increase the amount of cognitive effort put forth in a
task by increasing either its duration (working longer), its intensity (working
harder), or both (working longer and harder) (Cloud, 1997). An instrument composed of five items that
was modified from (Awang-Hashim, et al., 2002;Johnson and Saccuzzo, 1995;Iskandar, et al., 2012). Only a few questions that were pertinent to
this study were employed, including three questions from Johnson and Saccuzzo (1995), two questions from Awang-Hashim, et al. (2002), and two questions from Alexander, et al. (2012). The auditor or
participant is asked to rate the task's difficulty and the amount of effort
needed to accomplish each task instrument item. Rating replies on a Likert
scale of 1 to 10, with 1 representing "strongly disagree," and 10
representing "strongly agree" (score 10). High/low scores reflect the
level of effort put out in finishing the audit tasks.
Audit Judgment Performance
Variable
explanation The performance of the auditor's judgment in determining the
opinion/opinion regarding the audit results, which refers to the formation of
an idea, opinion, or estimate of an object, event, status, or other type of
event, is referred to as saudit judgment performance/audit judgment performance
(Sanusi and
Iskandar, 2007; Iskandar, et al., 2012).
Auditor performance is evaluated using instruments developed by (Sanusi, et al.,
2007;Iskandar, et
al., 2012) that
include a series of questions about the audit case.
Audit
judgments measured
through correct answers with the highest score of 10. Answers are considered
reasonable if an error occurs in the account that will be affected and the
magnitude of the error is stated correctly. An answer is said to be
unreasonable if it does not meet all the criteria for a reasonable answer (Bonner and
Sprinkle, 2002). The
number of correct responses to questions in audit cases such as detailed
inspection/substantive test, internal control system test/compliance test, and
financial report posting errors (calculated as a percentage score) total list
of questions. With the highest score of 10, answering 4 (four) questions, then
answering 3 (three) questions will get a score of 7.5, answering 2 (two)
questions will get a score of 5, and answering 1 question will get a score of
2.5.
Auditor Time Budget Pressure
According to DeZoort and Lord (1997), the auditor's time
budget pressure variable is the pressure that occurs due to the limited
resources that can be given to carry out the task, then Raghunathan, et al. (1991) Defining the
auditor's time budget pressure is a condition indicating that the auditor is
required to perform efficiently on a very tight and rigid time budget. The
pressure on the auditor's time budget is determined by measuring the
difficulty, frequency, and frequency with which the budget must be met. The
auditor's time budget pressure variable is viewed from the perspectives of
budget tightness, budget attainability, and budget ability. The time budget pressure
of the auditor is measured using an interval scale, namely the Likert scale. This variable employs 3 (three) question
items, namely 1 (one) question item to assess budget tightness using
instruments developed by Kelley and Seiler (1982); Kelley and Margheim (1990), which indicates a scale of 1 is impossible
to achieve and scale 5 is very easy to achieve, and 2 (two) question items to
assess budget ability using instruments developed by Otley and Pierce (1996), and used Sososutikno (2011), which indicates a scale of 1 never and scale
5 is very easy to The higher the score, the easier it is to meet the time
budget, implying that the auditor is not under pressure to meet the time
budget.
Data Analysis
Data from 90 respondents in this study were processed
with WarpPLS 4.0. The test results obtained are as follows:
Table 1. Latent Variable Coefficient
|
|
AJPE |
SEEF |
EFFO |
TAWA |
TAWA *EFFO |
|
R-squared |
0.217 |
|
0.647 |
|
|
|
Adj. R--squared |
0.190 |
|
0.643 |
|
|
|
Composite
Reliability. |
0.815 |
0.971 |
0921 |
0931 |
0.965 |
|
Cronbach's alpha |
0.659 |
0966 |
0.884 |
0.889 |
0.960 |
|
Avg. Var. Extractc |
0.595 |
0.807 |
0.747 |
0.819 |
0.698 |
|
Full collin. VIF |
1,279 |
3,222 |
3.139 |
1,487 |
1,253 |
|
Q-squared |
0.231 |
|
0.644 |
|
|
Source: PLS 4.0 Warp Outputs
Table 1 aboveshows the coefficients of each
construct/latent variable. According to Ghozali and Latan (2014) rule of thumb limits
and significance for R-Square or Adjusted R2 is ≤0.70, indicating a strong
model, ≤0.45, indicating a moderate model, and ≤0.25, indicating a weak model.
This means that the influence of audit judgment performance variables on
self-efficacy and moderate auditor time budget pressure (0.217, 0.190).
Meanwhile, the effect of the effort variable on self-efficacy and auditor time
budget pressure is strong (0.647, 0.643).
Composite reliability>0.70 for confirmatory research and
0.60-0.70 for exploratory research. Average variance extracted (AVE) >0.50.
Cronbach alpha > 0.6 – 0.70. Full colinearity variance inflation factor
(VIF) <3.3 and Q-squared coefficients are used to assess the predictive
validity or relevance of predictor latent variable blocks to criterion latent
variables. The value of reasonable predictive validity is if the Q-squared
coefficient is above zero (Hair, et al., 2011). This shows that all variables meet the
level of internal consistent reliability.
Next, the full colinearity variance inflation
factor (VIF) value for each construct/variable is also very good, namely
<3.3, so there are no vertical or lateral collinearity problems in this research
model. Finally, the Q-squared coefficient in this study produces a value
above/greater than zero, namely for the variable audit judgment performance
(AJPE) of 0.231 and effort (EFFO) of 0.644. Thus it can be concluded that this
research model has a decent predictive relevance validity value.
The test results in Figure 1 show that all
relationships are between variables self-efficacy has a positive and significant effect on
effort, self-efficacy has a positive and significant effect on audit judgment
performance, effort has a positive and significant effect on audit judgment
performance, and auditor time budget pressure has a positive and significant
effect on the relationship between effort and audit judgment
performancesignificant with p<0.01. More specifically, the results of
testing the hypothesis in this study can be seen in Figure 1 below:
SEEF
= Self-Efficacy; EFFO = Effort (Effort);
AJPE
= Audit Judgment Performance; TAWA = Auditor Time Budget Pressure
APC=0.385,
P<0.001
ARS=0.432,
P<0.001
AARS=0.416,
P<0.001
AVIF=2.342,
Good if < 5
AFVIF=2.076,
Good if < 3.3
GoF=0.563,
small >= 0.1, medium >= 0.25, large >= 0.36
Source:
PLS 4.0 Warp Outputs
Figure 1 Research Results Model
Source: PLS 4.0
Outputs
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 2. Research Results
|
Hypothesis |
Statement |
Results |
|
H1 |
Self Efficacypositive effect on Effort |
Supported |
|
H2 |
Self Efficacypositive effect on Audit Judgment
Performance |
Supported |
|
H3 |
effortpositive effect on Audit Judgment Performance |
Supported |
|
H4 |
Auditor Time Budget Pressure affects the relationship
between Effort and Audit Judgment Performance |
Supported |
Source: Primary data processed (2015)
Testing the first hypothesis shows an
estimated value of 0.80 and p<0.01. Based on the test results, it was found
that self-efficacy has a positive and significant effect on effort. This result
is in line withstudies Stajkovic and Luthans (1998a);Alexander, et
al. (2012) which states that
auditors who have self-efficacy will exert sufficient effort to produce good
audit judgment performance. That is, an auditor who has a high level of
self-efficacy will also use more effort.
Alexander, et al. (2012) conducted research
on 65 senior and junior KAP Pekan Baru and Padang auditors, using the PLS
method. The variables used are accountability, self-efficacy, effort, and audit
judgment performance. The results of the study prove that self-efficacy is
positively related to audit judgment performance. Lai and Chen (2012) who conducted
research with 616 respondents also found results that self-efficacy has a
positive effect on performance and job satisfaction. Study Alexander, et al. (2012) and Lai and Chen (2012) This supports the
acceptance of the proposed 2nd hypothesis. The test results show an estimated
value of 0.31, probability <0.01 using a p=0.05 limit, so self-efficacy is
proven to have a positive and significant effect on audit judgment performance.
The results of testing the third hypothesis show the
value of the regression coefficient of0.21, p<0.01.With a significance level =0.05,it can be concluded that effort has a positive
effect on audit judgment performance, H2 is accepted. Regarding the results of
the second hypothesis, these results are in accordance with the results of the
study Arifuddin (2012);Alexander, et al. (2012);Lai and Chen (2012) which states that
effort has a positive effect on performance and job satisfaction.
According to previous
research, auditors are prone to terminating audit procedures prematurely due to
time constraints. According to the findings of Wagoner and Cashell (1991), 48% of respondents
agree that time pressure has a negative impact on auditor performance, and 31%
agree that excessive time pressure will cause the auditor to stop the audit
procedure. Arnold, et al. (2000) found that the
percentage of errors in conducting an audit would be greater under conditions
of time pressure, which is equal to 32%, greater than under normal conditions
which amounted to 24.8%. Study Alderman and Deitrick (1982) states that more
than 51% of auditors agree that time budget has a significant influence on
audit performance. Shapeero, et al. (2005) found that as
budgetary tightness increases, the practice of premature termination of audit
procedures also increases. This is in line with the results of hypothesis
testing which shows that there is an effect of auditor time budget pressure on
the relationship between effort and audit judgment performance with an estimate
of 0.21 and p <0.01.
The four hypotheses
proposed are all based on the same theory, which is the social cognitive theory
as a grand theory. According to Robbins (2006) social cognitive
theory defines human behavior as the interaction of individual, behavioral, and
environmental factors. This theory is closely related to the process of
becoming a good person. This theory explains how knowledge (knowledge),
personal experience (personal experience), and individual characteristics
(personal characteristics) interact during learning. Bandura (1977) defines learning as
the process of observing and imitating the behavior and attitude of others as a
model. Social cognitive theory or social learning theory will reassure the
auditor that he is capable of completing a task. The higher the auditor's
self-effectiveness, the more confident the auditor is in his ability to
complete a task. Thus, auditors believe that in difficult situations,
individuals with low self-efficacy tend to reduce their efforts or give up,
whereas individuals with high self-efficacy will try harder to overcome
challenges.
CONCLUSION
Based on the data analysis, the practical
implications or regulatory policies in this study are: first, the Central BPK
RI needs to consider using the auditor's self-efficacy and effort in every
audit of the financial statements of ministries/institutions that are the
object of the audit entity. Both self-efficacy and effort can improve the audit
judgment performance of auditors in Indonesia. Third, the auditor's time budget
pressure can be considered in influencing the relationship of effort to audit
judgment performance.
Future research can be conducted by delving
deeper into the audit judgment test. This is significant because the BPK
inspection standard states that the auditor must use his professional judgment
in assessing audit-related matters. The more precise the auditor's audit
judgment, the more precise the audit results.
REFERENCES
Alderman, C. W., & J. W. Deitrick. (1982).
Auditors’perceptions of time budget pressures and premature sign-offs'. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory:54-68.
Arifuddin. (2012). Pengaruh
Insentif Kinerja Terhadap Audit Judgment, Dengan Upaya Sebagai Interventing Dan
Kompleksitas Tugas Sebagai Moderating. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro
Arnold, V., S. G.
Sutton, S. C. Hayne, & C. Smith.
(2000). Group decision making: The impact of opportunity-cost time
pressure and group support systems. Journal
of Information Systems 21 (1):27-51.
Ashton, R. H., & A. H. Ashton. (1995). Judgment and decision
making research in accounting and auditing. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Awang-Hashim, R.,
H. F. O’Neil, & Hocevar. (2002).
Ethnicity, effort, self-efficacy, worry, and statistics achievement in
Malaysia: a construct validation of the state-trait motivation model. Educational Assessment 8 (4):341-364.
Badjuri, A. (2012). Analysis
Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kualitas Hasil Pemeriksaan Audit Sektor Publik.
Dinamika Akuntansi, Keuangan Dan
Perbankan 1 (2):120-135.
Bandura, A. (1977).
Self-efficacy. Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84:191-215.
———. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
———. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control.
New York, NY: Freeman.
Bonner, S. E. (1994). A model
of the effects of audit task complexity. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 19 (3):213-234.
Bonner, S. E., & Sprinkle. (2002). The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task
performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22:303-345.
BPK, R. I. (2017). Hasil Pemeriksaan Semester Ii Tahun Anggaran (Ta) 2007 Atas
Pengendalian Kerusakan Pertambangan Umum Dan Penerimaan Royalti Tahun 2003-2007
Pada PT. Timah Tbk Dan PT. Koba Tin Di Jakarta Dan Pangkal Pinang, edited by A.
U. K. N. IV.
BPK RI. (2007).
Peraturan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Nomor 1 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar
Pemeriksaan Keuangan Negara, edited by BPKRI. Indonesia: Jakarta.
Chang, C. J., & Liao. (1997). The Effects of Justification, Task Complexity and
Experience/ Training on Problem-Solving Performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting 9:98-116.
Chen, G., S. M.
Gully & Eden, D. (2001).
Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods
4 (1):62-83.
Cloyd, C. B. (1997).
Performance in Tax Research Tasks: The Joint Effects of Knowledge and
Accountability. The Accounting Review
72 (1):111-131.
DeZoort, F. T., & Lord, A. T. (1997). Review
and Synthesis of Pressure Effects Researchin Accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature 16:28-85.
Ghozali, I., & Latan, H. (2014). Partial Least Squares Konsep, Metode, dan
Aplikasi Menggunakan Program Warp PLS 4.0. Semarang: BP-UNDIP.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992).
Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review 17 (2):183-211.
Hair, J. F., C. M.
Ringle, & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2):139-151.
Herningsih, S. (2001).
Penghentian Prematur atas Prosedur Audit : Studi Empiris pada
Kantor Akuntan Publik, Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Gajah
Mada Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order
Effects in Belief Updating: The Belief. Adjustment
Mode. Cognitive Psychology 24:1 - 55.
Indriantoro, N., & Supomo, B. (2002). Metodologi Penelitian
Bisnis Untuk Akuntansi dan Manajemen. Yogyakarta: BPFE.
Iskandar, T. M.,
Sari, R. N. & Anugerah, R. (2012).
Enhancing auditors’ performance The importance of motivational factors and the
mediation effect of effort. Managerial
Auditing Journal 27 (5):462-476.
Johnson, N. E., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1995).
Self-reported effort versus actual performance in information processing
paradigms. Journal of General Psychology
122 (2):195-210.
Jones, J. W. (1989).
Personality and Epistemology: Cognitive social learning theory as a philosophy
of science. Zygon 24 (1):23-38.
Kelley, T., & Margheim, L. (1990). The
Impact of Time Budget Pressure, Personality, and Leadership Variables on
Dysfunctional Auditor Behavior. Auditing:
A Journal of Practice & Theory 9 (2):21-42.
Kelley, T., & Seiler, R. E. (1982). Auditor
stress and time budgets. The CPA Journal
52:24-34.
Lai, M.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Self-Efficacy, Effort, Job Performance, Job Satisfaction,
and Turnover Intention: The Effect of Personal Characteristics on Organization
Performance. International Journal of
Innovation, Management and Technology 3 (4).
Libby, R., & Lipe, M. G. (1992). Incentives, Effort, and the Cognitive Processes Involved in
Accounting-Related Judgments. Journal of
Accounting Research 30 (2):249-273.
Margheim, L.,
Kelley, T. & Pattison, D. (2005). An Empirical Analysis Of The Effects Of Auditor Time Budget
Pressure And Time Deadline Pressure. The
Journal of Applied Business Research 21 (1):23-36.
Margheim, L., & Pany, K. (1986). Quality
Control, Premature Sign off and Underreporting of Time: Some Empirical
Findings. Auditing: A Journal of Practice
and Theory:50-63.
McDaniel, L. S. (1990). The
Effects of Time Pressure and Audit Program Structure on Audit Performance. Journal of Accounting Research 28
(2):267-285.
Otley, D. T., & Pierce, B. J. (1996). Auditor
time budget pressure: consequences and antecedents. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9 (1):31-58.
Raghunathan, K.,
Grimlund, R. A. &
Schepanski, A. (1991). Auditor
evaluation of loss contingencies. Contemporary Accounting
Research 7 (2):549-569.
Robbins, S. P. (2006). Organizational Behavior. Singapore:
Prentice Hall.
Sanusi, Z.,
Iskandar, T. & Poon, J. M. L. (2007). Effect
of Goal Orientation and Task Complexity on Audit Judgment Performance. Malaysian Accounting Review:123-139.
Sanusi, Z. M., & Iskandar, T. M. (2007). Audit Judgment Performance: Assessing The Effect of
Performance Incentives, Effort and Task Complexity. Managerial Auditing Journal 22 (1):34-52.
Shapeero, M., Koh,
H. & Killough, L. (2005).
Underreporting and premature sign-off in public accounting. Managerial Auditing Journal 18:478-489.
Sososutikno, C. (2011). Tekanan
yang Berhubungan dengan Pekerjaan Auditor, Perilaku Disfungsional dan Kinerja
Auditor (studi empiris Auditor Junior di KAP Afiliasi). Semarang: Universitas
Diponegoro
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998a). Differential effects of incentive motivators on work
performance. Academy of Management
Journal 44 (3):580-590.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998b). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin
124 (2):240-261.
Waggoner, J. B., & Cashell, J. (1991). The impact of time pressure on auditors’ performance. The Ohio CPA Journal
January/April:27-32.
Weningtyas, S. (2006).
Penghentian Prematur Atas Prosedur Audit. In Simposium Nasional Akuntansi 9. Padang.
Wood, R. E.,
Atkins, P. & Tabernero, C. (2000). Self-efficacy and strategy on complex tasks. Applied Psychology: An International Review
49 (3):430-446.
Copyright holders:
Muhsin (2023)
First publication right:
Devotion - Journal of Research and Community
Service
This
article is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International