公共会计绩效评估:专业怀疑主义和结果(一项实验研究)

Gisilowati Dian Purnama Sari, Agung Juliarto, Raharja Raharja
{"title":"公共会计绩效评估:专业怀疑主义和结果(一项实验研究)","authors":"Gisilowati Dian Purnama Sari, Agung Juliarto, Raharja Raharja","doi":"10.14710/JAA.14.2.144-171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Professional skepticism is a behavior that it is although encouraged by the profession does not always produce the same outcome (e.g., sometimes it leads to the identification of a misstatement and other times it may not). Highly skeptical auditors increase the likelihood that material misstatements are detected, which is important in promoting investor confidence and global financial stability. However, exercising skepticism may also come at a cost (e.g., budget overruns and potential conflicts with management). The failure to identify a material misstatement in the financial statements may result in restatements. Research on outcome effects suggests that auditor’s performance evaluation may be influenced more by the outcome of their skeptical behavior (i.e., whether or not a misstatement is found) than by whether they engaged in the appropriate level of skeptical behavior. This study aims to obtain new empirical evidence whether there is a difference between the auditor’s performance evaluation when a misstatement is found than when no misstatement is found. These studies further examine whether consultation during the process of exercising skepticism can alleviate the outcome effect bias.This is a experimental that research for a causal relationship between the dependent variabel and independent variable. Respondents in this study is the auditor who has experience doing supervision. Repondents were gethered in the seminar organized by IAPI and PPPK. Seminar was held on 2016 may 30th, in Semarang Quest Hotel. Testing of this reserch using indepent sample t-test and two way ANOVA.Finding of first experiment finds that the outcome of an investigation will affect auditors’ performance evaluations. There are significant differences of performance evaluations between staff who do not identify a misstatement versus staff who do identify a misstatement. This reserach also examine whether responses are significantly higher when a misstatement is found than when no misstatement is found. Futhermor result of this study reveal that consultation with the superior during the process of exercising skepticism effectively mitigate the outcome effects in auditor evaluations. The result of this study show that the evaluators did not effected the outcome effect in auditor’s performance evaluation.","PeriodicalId":32428,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.14710/JAA.14.2.144-171","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EVALUASI KINERJA AKUNTAN PUBLIK: SKEPTISME PROFESIONAL DAN OUTCOME EFFECT (SEBUAH STUDI EKSPERIMENTAL)\",\"authors\":\"Gisilowati Dian Purnama Sari, Agung Juliarto, Raharja Raharja\",\"doi\":\"10.14710/JAA.14.2.144-171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Professional skepticism is a behavior that it is although encouraged by the profession does not always produce the same outcome (e.g., sometimes it leads to the identification of a misstatement and other times it may not). Highly skeptical auditors increase the likelihood that material misstatements are detected, which is important in promoting investor confidence and global financial stability. However, exercising skepticism may also come at a cost (e.g., budget overruns and potential conflicts with management). The failure to identify a material misstatement in the financial statements may result in restatements. Research on outcome effects suggests that auditor’s performance evaluation may be influenced more by the outcome of their skeptical behavior (i.e., whether or not a misstatement is found) than by whether they engaged in the appropriate level of skeptical behavior. This study aims to obtain new empirical evidence whether there is a difference between the auditor’s performance evaluation when a misstatement is found than when no misstatement is found. These studies further examine whether consultation during the process of exercising skepticism can alleviate the outcome effect bias.This is a experimental that research for a causal relationship between the dependent variabel and independent variable. Respondents in this study is the auditor who has experience doing supervision. Repondents were gethered in the seminar organized by IAPI and PPPK. Seminar was held on 2016 may 30th, in Semarang Quest Hotel. Testing of this reserch using indepent sample t-test and two way ANOVA.Finding of first experiment finds that the outcome of an investigation will affect auditors’ performance evaluations. There are significant differences of performance evaluations between staff who do not identify a misstatement versus staff who do identify a misstatement. This reserach also examine whether responses are significantly higher when a misstatement is found than when no misstatement is found. Futhermor result of this study reveal that consultation with the superior during the process of exercising skepticism effectively mitigate the outcome effects in auditor evaluations. The result of this study show that the evaluators did not effected the outcome effect in auditor’s performance evaluation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.14710/JAA.14.2.144-171\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14710/JAA.14.2.144-171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14710/JAA.14.2.144-171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

职业怀疑是一种行为,尽管受到职业的鼓励,但并不总是产生相同的结果(例如,有时它会导致错误陈述的识别,而有时可能不会)。高度怀疑的审计师增加了发现重大错报的可能性,这对提高投资者信心和全球金融稳定非常重要。然而,持怀疑态度也可能付出代价(例如,预算超支和与管理层的潜在冲突)。未能识别财务报表中的重大错报可能导致重述。对结果效应的研究表明,审计师的绩效评估可能更多地受到其怀疑行为的结果(即是否发现错报)的影响,而不是他们是否采取了适当的怀疑行为。本研究旨在获得新的经验证据,证明审计师在发现错报时的绩效评估与未发现错报的绩效评估之间是否存在差异。这些研究进一步检验了在行使怀疑态度的过程中进行咨询是否可以缓解结果效应偏差。这是一个研究因变量和自变量之间因果关系的实验。本研究中的受访者是有监督经验的审计师。与会者参加了由IAPI和PPPK组织的研讨会。研讨会于2016年5月30日在三宝垄Quest酒店举行。采用独立样本t检验和双向方差分析对该研究进行检验。第一个实验发现,调查结果会影响审计师的绩效评估。没有发现误报的工作人员与发现误报的人员在业绩评价方面存在显著差异。这项研究还考察了发现错报时的回答是否明显高于未发现错报的回答。本研究的进一步结果表明,在行使怀疑态度的过程中与上级的协商有效地减轻了审计师评估的结果影响。研究结果表明,在审计师的绩效评价中,评价者不影响结果效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EVALUASI KINERJA AKUNTAN PUBLIK: SKEPTISME PROFESIONAL DAN OUTCOME EFFECT (SEBUAH STUDI EKSPERIMENTAL)
Professional skepticism is a behavior that it is although encouraged by the profession does not always produce the same outcome (e.g., sometimes it leads to the identification of a misstatement and other times it may not). Highly skeptical auditors increase the likelihood that material misstatements are detected, which is important in promoting investor confidence and global financial stability. However, exercising skepticism may also come at a cost (e.g., budget overruns and potential conflicts with management). The failure to identify a material misstatement in the financial statements may result in restatements. Research on outcome effects suggests that auditor’s performance evaluation may be influenced more by the outcome of their skeptical behavior (i.e., whether or not a misstatement is found) than by whether they engaged in the appropriate level of skeptical behavior. This study aims to obtain new empirical evidence whether there is a difference between the auditor’s performance evaluation when a misstatement is found than when no misstatement is found. These studies further examine whether consultation during the process of exercising skepticism can alleviate the outcome effect bias.This is a experimental that research for a causal relationship between the dependent variabel and independent variable. Respondents in this study is the auditor who has experience doing supervision. Repondents were gethered in the seminar organized by IAPI and PPPK. Seminar was held on 2016 may 30th, in Semarang Quest Hotel. Testing of this reserch using indepent sample t-test and two way ANOVA.Finding of first experiment finds that the outcome of an investigation will affect auditors’ performance evaluations. There are significant differences of performance evaluations between staff who do not identify a misstatement versus staff who do identify a misstatement. This reserach also examine whether responses are significantly higher when a misstatement is found than when no misstatement is found. Futhermor result of this study reveal that consultation with the superior during the process of exercising skepticism effectively mitigate the outcome effects in auditor evaluations. The result of this study show that the evaluators did not effected the outcome effect in auditor’s performance evaluation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信