Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Equation 2: ARQ =
02
+
9
ICE +
10
ORA +
11
BAP +
12
APO +
13
ARA +
14
AII +
15
GEN +
16
EXP +
2
Equation 3: FIU =
03
+
17
ICE +
18
ORA +
19
BAP +
20
APO +
21
ARA +
22
AII +
23
GEN +
24
EXP +
3
Equation 4: AUS =
04
+
25
ICE +
26
ORA +
27
BAP +
28
APO +
29
ARA +
30
AII +
31
AVI +
32
ARQ +
33
FIU +
34
GEN +
35
EXP +
4
Equation 5: ICE =
05
+
36
LAV +
37
AMM +
38
ALC +
39
REF +
40
STP+
41
GEN +
42
EXP +
5
155
Equation 6: ICE =
06
+
43
LAV +
44
AMM +
45
ALC +
46
REF +
47
STP +
48
VAE
+
49
(LAV*VAE) +
50
(AMM*VAE) +
51
(ALC*VAE) +
52
(REF*VAE) +
53
(STP*VAE) +
54
GEN +
55
EXP +
6
Equation 7: ORA =
07
+
56
LAV +
57
AMM +
58
ALC +
59
REF +
60
STP +
61
GEN +
62
EXP +
7
Equation 8: ORA =
08
+
63
LAV +
64
AMM +
65
ALC +
66
REF +
67
STP +
68
VAE
+
69
(LAV*VAE) +
70
(AMM*VAE) +
71
(ALC*VAE) +
72
(REF*VAE) +
73
(STP*VAE) +
74
GEN +
75
EXP +
8
Equation 9: BAP =
09
+
76
LAV +
77
AMM +
78
ALC +
79
REF +
80
STP +
81
GEN +
82
EXP +
9
Equation 10: BAP =
10
+
83
LAV +
84
AMM +
85
ALC +
86
REF +
87
STP +
88
VAE
+
89
(LAV*VAE)+
90
(AMM*VAE) +
91
(ALC*VAE)+
92
(REF*VAE)
+
93
(STP*VAE) +
94
GEN +
95
EXP +
10
Equation 11: APO =
11
+
96
LAV +
97
AMM +
98
ALC +
99
REF +
100
STP +
101
GEN +
102
EXP
+
11
Equation 12: APO =
12
+
103
LAV +
104
AMM +
105
ALC +
106
REF +
107
STP +
108
VAE
+
109
(LAV*VAE) +
110
(AMM*VAE) +
111
(ALC*VAE) +
112
(REF*VAE)
+
113
(STP*VAE) +
114
GEN +
115
EXP +
12
Equation 13: ARA =
13
+
116
LAV +
117
AMM +
118
ALC +
119
REF +
120
STP +
121
GEN +
122
EXP +
13
Equation 14: ARA =
14
+
123
LAV +
124
AMM +
125
ALC +
126
REF +
127
STP +
128
VAE
+
129
(LAV*VAE) +
130
(AMM*VAE) +
131
(ALC*VAE) +
132
(REF*VAE)
+
133
(STP*VAE) +
134
GEN +
135
EXP +
14
Equation 15: AII =
15
+
136
LAV +
137
AMM +
138
ALC +
139
REF +
140
STP +
141
GEN +
142
EXP +
15
Equation 16: AII =
16
+
143
LAV +
144
AMM +
145
ALC +
146
REF +
147
STP +
148
VAE +
149
(LAV*VAE) +
150
(AMM*VAE) +
151
(ALC*VAE) +
152
(REF*VAE) +
153
(STP*VAE) +
154
GEN +
155
EXP +
16
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF MEASURE VALIDATION
Items Factor Loadings Cronbachs Alpha
Internal Control Evaluation (ICE) 0.69-0.99 0.92
Operational Risk Assessment (ORA) 0.72-0.95 0.88
Best Audit Practice Focus (BAP) 0.81-0.90 0.89
Audit Planning Orientation (APO) 0.73-0.90 0.89
Audit Review Awareness (ARA) 0.71-0.95 0.88
Audit Information Integration Concern (AII) 0.79-0.86 0.87
Audit Value Increase (AVI) 0.78-0.89 0.87
Audit Report Quality (ARQ) 0.83-0.91 0.92
Financial Information Usefulness (FIU) 0.82-0.87 0.81
Audit Survival (AUS) 0.84-0.88 0.81
Long-Term Audit Vision (LAV) 0.84-0.91 0.90
Audit Morality Mindset (AMM) 0.79-0.91 0.92
Audit Learning Competency (ALC) 0.74-0.88 0.84
Regulatory Force (REF) 0.83-0.95 0.92
Stakeholder Pressure (STP) 0.79-0.87 0.85
Valuable Audit Experience (VAE) 0.83-0.89 0.88
156
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all variables. With respect to potential
problems relating to multicollinearity, Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) were used to provide information
on the extent to which non-orthogonality among independent variables inflates standard errors. The VIFs
range from 1.01 to 8.40, well below the cut-off value of 10 recommended by Neter, Wasserman and
Kutner (1985), meaning that the independent variables are not correlated with each other. Therefore,
there are no substantial multicollinearity problems encountered in this study.
Table 3 shows the results of OLS regression analysis of the relationships between audit intelligence, audit
value increase, audit report quality, financial information usefulness, and audit survival. Audit intelligence
includes internal control evaluation, operational risk assessment, best audit practice focus, audit planning
orientation, audit review awareness and audit information integration concern. The results are based on
four equations. The results affect the six dimensions of audit intelligence on audit value increase, audit
report quality, financial information usefulness, and audit survival.
Internal control evaluation is significantly positively related to audit value increase (b
1
= 0.11, p < 0.1).
Thus, Hypothesis 1a is supported, but Hypotheses 1b, 1c, and 1d are not supported. Operational
risk assessment is not related to audit value increase, audit report quality, financial information
usefulness, and audit survival. Thus, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d are not supported. Best audit
practice focus is significantly positively related to audit value increase (b
3
= 0.26, p < 0.01), audit report
quality (b
11
= 0.32, p < 0.01), and financial information usefulness (b
19
= 0.30, p < 0.01). Thus,
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c are supported, and 3d is not supported. Audit planning orientation is
significantly positively related to audit survival (b
28
= 0.30, p < 0.05).
TABLE 2
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATION MATRIX
Variables ICE ORA BAP APO ARA AII AVI ARQ FIU AUS LAV AMM ALC REF STP VAE GEN EXP
Mean 4.00 4.17 4.17 4.20 4.24 4.10 4.08 4.15 4.08 4.07 4.27 4.32 4.24 4.09 4.01 4.28
S.D. 0.63 0.55 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.61 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.57 0.56 0.53 0.60 0.58 0.54
ICE
ORA .61***
BAP .64*** .67***
APO .66*** .59*** .75***
ARA .59*** .57*** .71*** .90***
AII .60*** .60*** .80*** .77*** .72***
AVI .58*** .54*** .70*** .71*** .73*** .66***
ARQ .52*** .56*** .71*** .70*** .74*** .65*** .82***
FIU .52*** .51*** .68*** .66*** .70*** .65*** .80*** .92***
AUS .46*** .44*** .58*** .68*** .69*** .53*** .71*** .70*** .68***
LAV .50*** .58*** .66*** .70*** .71*** .61*** .71*** .73*** .70*** .66***
AMM .45*** .51*** .71*** .68*** .69*** .66*** .71*** .73*** .71*** .69*** .79***
ALC .43*** .42*** .58*** .62*** .64*** .53*** .61*** .61*** .56*** .58*** .70*** .69***
REF .43*** .47*** .53*** .55*** .56*** .48*** .56*** .61*** .61*** .56*** .59*** .62*** .65***
STP .50*** .53*** .62*** .67*** .70*** .59*** .69*** .70*** .67*** .61*** .70*** .68*** .66*** .67***
VAE .53*** .52*** .66*** .71*** .72*** .66*** .69*** .70*** .68*** .65*** .72*** .71*** .68*** .59*** .70***
GEN -.05 -.08 -.06 -.07 -.05 -.10 -.07 -.11 -.11 -.04 -.11 -.07 -.03 .03 -.03 -.18***
EXP .10 .04 -.01 .07 .04 .08 .05 -.01 .02 -.02 .02 -.03 -.04 -.04 .02 .08 -.08
***
p<0.01,
**
p<0.05,
*
p<0.10
Thus, Hypothesis 4d is supported, but Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c are not supported. Audit review
awareness is significantly positively related to audit value increase (b
5
= 0.43, p < 0.01), audit report
quality (b
13
= 0.51, p < 0.01), and financial information usefulness (b
21
= 0.49, p < 0.01). Thus,
Hypotheses 5a, 5b, and 5c are supported, but Hypothesis 5d is not supported. Audit information
157
integration concern is significantly positively related to financial information usefulness (b
22
= 0.14, p <
0.1). Thus, Hypothesis 6c is supported, but Hypotheses 6a, 6b, and 6d are not supported.
Audit value increase is significantly positively related to audit survival (b
31
= 0.22, p < 0.01). Thus,
Hypothesis 7 is supported. Audit report quality is not related to audit survival. Thus, Hypothesis 8 is
not supported. Financial information usefulness is significantly positively related to audit survival (b
33
=
0.19, p < 0.1). Thus, Hypothesis 9 is supported.
Table 4 presents the results of the affect of five antecedences of audit intelligence that consist of long-
term audit vision, audit morality mindset, audit learning competency, regulatory force, and stakeholder
pressure. The results indicated that long-term audit vision is significantly positively related to internal
control evaluation (b
36
= 0.23, p < 0.05), operational risk assessment (b
56
= 0.40, p < 0.01), best audit
practice focus (b
76
= 0.16, p < 0.1), audit planning orientation (b
96
= 0.24, p < 0.01), and audit review
awareness (b
116
= 0.26, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypotheses 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d, and 10e are supported, but
Hypothesis 10f is not supported. Audit morality mindset is significantly positively related to best audit
practice focus (b
77
= 0.41, p < 0.01), audit planning orientation (b
97
= 0.22, p < 0.01), audit review
awareness (b
117
= 0.20, p < 0.01), and audit information integration concern (b
137
= 0.40, p < 0.01). Thus,
Hypotheses 11c, 11d, 11e, and 11f are supported, but Hypotheses 11a and 11b are not supported.
TABLE 3
RESULTS OF OLS REGRESSION ANALYSIS
a
Independent Dependent Variables
Variables AVI ARQ
FIU AUS
ICE 0.11
*
0.01 0.06 -0.03
(0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07)
ORA 0.02 0.07 -0.01 -0.02
(0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07)
BAP 0.26
***
0.32
***
0.30
***
0.02
(0.09) (0.08) (0.10) (0.09)
APO -0.01 -0.08 -0.14 0.30
**
(0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12)
ARA 0.43
***
0.51
***
0.49
***
0.12
(0.11) (0.10) (0.11) (0.12)
AII 0.06 0.04 0.14
*
-0.13
(0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09)
AVI 0.28
***
(0.09)
ARQ 0.12
(0.13)
FIU 0.19
*
(0.12)
GEN -0.03 -0.14 -0.12 0.04
(0.09) (0.09) (0.10) (0.09)
EXP
0.05 -0.07 -0.02 -0.10
(0.09) (0.09) (0.10) (0.10)
Adjusted R
2
0.60 0.61 0.56 0.58
***
p<0.01,
**
p<0.05,
*
p<0.10,
a
Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.
158
TABLE 4
RESULTS OF OLS REGRESSION ANALYSIS
a
Independent Dependent Variables
Variables ICE ICE ORA ORA BAP BAP APO APO ARA ARA AII AII
LAV 0.23
**
0.20
**
0.40
***
0.38
***
0.16
*
0.12
*
0.24
***
0.19
**
0.26
***
0.21
***
0.11 0.09
(0.11) (0.11) (0.10) (0.11) (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09)
AMM 0.04 -0.01 0.06 0.05 0.41
***
0.38
***
0.22
***
0.14
*
0.20
***
0.13
*
0.40
***
0.34
***
(0.11) (0.11) (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09)
ALC 0.04 -0.02 -0.13 -0.14 0.05 0.00 0.12
*
0.05 0.12
*
0.06 0.05 -0.04
(0.09) (0.10) (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08)
REF 0.11 0.09 0.17
**
0.14
*
0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.01
(0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.70) (0.70) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.07)
STP 0.22
**
0.14
*
0.17
**
0.14
*
0.16
**
0.10 0.24
***
0.17
**
0.28
***
0.21
***
0.20
***
0.12
(0.10) (0.10) (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08)
VAE 0.26
***
0.13 0.23
***
0.29
***
0.27
***
0.30
***
(0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) (0.08)
LAV*VAE 0.06 -0.03 -0.02 0.07 -0.01 0.15*
(0.11) (0.11) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.09)
AMM*VAE 0.01 -0.01 0.09 -0.06 -0.03 -0.06
(0.12) (0.12) (0.10) (0.09) (0.09) (0.10)
ALC*VAE -0.08 0.08 -0.06 -0.06 -0.08 -0.06
(0.09) (0.09) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08)
REF*VAE 0.06 -0.02 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.13
(0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08)
STP*VAE 0.01 0.03 -0.05 -0.04 0.04 -0.07
(0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) (0.08)
GEN -0.04 0.01 -0.08 -0.05 -0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.06 0.01 0.09 -0.09 -0.03
(0.12) (0.13) (0.12) (0.12) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.09) (0.09) (0.11) (0.11)
EXP 0.20 0.14 0.07 0.06 -0.01 -0.04 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.16 0.10
(0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.11) (0.10)
Adjusted R
2
0.29 0.30 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.47 0.51
***
p<0.01,
**
p<0.05,
*
p<0.10,
a
Beta coefficients with standard errors in parenthesis.
Audit learning competency is significantly positively related to audit planning orientation (b
98
= 0.12, p <
0.1) and audit review awareness (b
118
= 0.12, p < 0.1).
Thus, Hypotheses 12d and 12e are supported, but Hypotheses 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12f are not
supported. Regulatory force is significantly positively related to operational risk assessment (b
59
= 0.17,
p < 0.05).
Thus, Hypothesis 13b is supported, but Hypotheses 13a, 13c, 13d, 13e, and 13f are not supported.
Stakeholder pressure is significantly positively related to internal control evaluation (b
40
= 0.22, p < 0.05),
operational risk assessment (b
60
= 0.17, p < 0.05), best audit practice focus (b
80
= 0.16, p < 0.05), audit
planning orientation (b
100
= 0.24, p < 0.01), audit review awareness (b
120
= 0.28, p < 0.01), and audit
information integration concern (b
140
= 0.20, p < 0.01).
Thus, Hypotheses 14a, 14b, 14c, 14d, 14e, and 14f are supported.
Moreover, all interaction among valuable audit experience and five antecedents are predicted that have
positive influence on all six dimensions of audit intelligence. That finding indicated the interaction between
valuable audit experience significantly positively moderates the relationships between long-term audit
vision and audit information integration concern (b
149
= 0.15, p < 0.1).
Thus, Hypothesis 15f is supported but other hypotheses are not supported.
6. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1 Theoretical Implication
This study provides a clear understanding the relationships between audit intelligence and audit survival
of TAs in Thailand via audit value increase, audit report quality, and financial information usefulness.
159
Furthermore, this study determines long-term audit vision, audit morality mindset, audit learning
competency, regulatory force, and stakeholder pressure as the antecedents of audit intelligence.
The moderating variable as valuable audit experience has effects on the relationship between the
antecedents and audit intelligence. This study provides two theoretical implications expanding on prior
knowledge and literatures of audit intelligence.
For advancing the field theoretically, this study is one of the first known studies to link audit intelligence to
audit value increase, audit report quality, financial information usefulness, and audit survival, including the
moderators of valuable audit experience of TAs in Thailand.
6.2 Managerial Implications
TAs will profoundly understand, and thus effectively manage and utilize audit intelligence to enhance
audit value increase, audit report quality, and financial information usefulness which can lead to audit
survival.
Furthermore, to maximize benefits of audit intelligence, TAs who required desirable achievement will gain
long-term audit vision, audit morality mindset, audit learning competency, regulatory force, and
stakeholder pressure to support their work and maintain audit survival.
Future research may study other variables to extend the relationships between audit intelligence, audit
value increase, audit report quality, and financial information usefulness that affect audit survival.
This study makes three contributions to the literature of audit intelligence. Firstly, this research provides
new dimensions to measure audit intelligence of auditors; namely, internal control evaluation, operational
risk assessment, best audit practice focus, audit planning orientation, audit review awareness and audit
information integration concern, including advances in the literature, by categorizing many antecedents
and consequences of audit intelligence and developing a model to test the relationships.
Secondly, this research examines the relationships between audit intelligence and audit survival via audit
value increase, audit report quality and financial information usefulness under the moderating effects of
valuable audit experience.
Lastly, this research provides an important contribution to the theories. There are two main theories used
to explain the relationship among the variables in this research, including the theory of successful
intelligence and the contingency theory. Thus, these variables are considered in the purposes and
research questions of this research.
7. CONCLUSION
This study examines audit intelligence that influences audit value increase, audit report quality, and
financial information usefulness, which provide audit survival for TAs in Thailand. The results also present
long-term audit vision, audit morality mindset, audit learning competency, regulatory force, and
stakeholder pressure which are the antecedents of audit intelligence.
Audit value increase and financial information usefulness also have a positive influence on audit survival.
Valuable audit experience does not positively moderate the relationships among long-term audit vision,
audit morality mindset, audit learning competency, regulatory force, and stakeholder pressure and audit
intelligence, and the relationships between audit intelligence and audit survival.
Finally, the advantages of audit intelligence will reach to long-term audit vision, audit morality mindset,
audit learning competency, regulatory force, and stakeholder pressure to support the auditors work and
enhance audit survival.
160
REFERENCES:
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V. and Day, G. S. 2001. Marketing Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Abbott, L. J., and Parker, S. 2000. Audit Selection and Audit Committee Characteristics. Auditing: A
Journal of Practice and Theory, 19(2): 47-66.
Agoglia, C. P., Kida, T. and Hanno, D. M. 2003. The Effect of Alternative Justification Memos on the
Judgments of Audit Reviewees and Reviewers. Journal of Accounting Research, 41: 33-46.
__________, Hatfield, R. C. and Brazel, J. F. 2009. The Effects of Audit Review Format on Review Team
Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 28: 95-111.
Al-Ajmi, J. 2009. Audit Firm, Corporate Governance and Audit Quality: Evidence From Bahrain. Advances
in Accounting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting, 25: 64-74,
Anderson, S. W. and Lanen, W. N. 1999. Economic Transition, Strategy and the Evolution of
Management Accounting Practices: The Case of India. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24: 379-
412.
Armstrong, J. S. and Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating Nonrespons Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14: 396-402.
Ashbaugh-Skaife, H. and others. 2008. The Effect of Internal Control Deficiencies and Their Remediation
on Accrual Quality. The Accounting Review, 83(1): 217-50.
Ashton, A. 1991. Experience and error frequency knowledge as potential determinants of audit expertise.
The Accounting Review, 66 (2): 218239.
Bakre, O.M. 2007. The Unethical Practices of Accountants and Auditors and the Compromising Stance
of Professional Bodies in the Corporate World: Evidence from Corporate Nigeria. Accounting
Forum, 31: 277-303.
Bedard, J. 1989. Expertise in Auditing: Myth or Reality. Accounting Organizations and Society, 14 (1&2):
113-131.
________ . 1991. Expertise and Its Relation to Audit Decision Quality. Contemporary Accounting
Research, 8(1): 198-222.
________. and Chi, M. 1993. Expertise in Auditing. Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory, 21-45.
________. and Wright, Arnold M. 1994. The Functionality of Decision Heuristics: Reliance on Prior Audit
Adjustment in Evidential Planning. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6: 62-89.
________., Theodore Mock, and Arnold Wright. 1999. Evidential planning in auditing: A review of the
empirical research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 18: 96-142.
Bedard, J.,Graham, L., and Jackson, C. 2005. Information Systems Risk and Audit Planning. International
Journal of Auditing, 9: 147.
Bhattacharjee, S., Moreno, K. and Yardley, J. 2005. Auditors as Underwriters: An Alternative Framework.
International Journal of Auditing, 9: 1-19.
Bonner, S. and Lewis, B. 1990. Determinants of Auditor Expertise. Journal of Accounting Research, 28 :
1-20.
161
Brandts, Luc. 2007. Integrated Compliance: The Challenge of Convergence. Internal Auditing, 22(3) : 25.
Brocheler, V., Maijoor, S., and Witteloostuijn, A. 2004. Auditor human capital and audit firm survival.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29: 627-646.
Cadez, S. and Guilding, C. 2008. An Exploratory Investigation of an Integrated Contingency model of
Strategic Management Accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33: 836-863.
Chaney, Christine and Kim Gene. 2007. The Integrated Auditor. The Internal Auditor, 64(4) : 46.
Chang, S. and others. 2008. The Development of Audit Detection Risk Assessment System : Using the
Fuzzy Theory and Audit Risk Model. Expert Systems with Applications, 35 : 1053-1067.
Choe, J. 2004. The Relationships Among Management Accounting Information, Organizational Learning
and Production Performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13: 61-85.
Cohen, A. and Kol, Y. 2004. Professionalism and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: An Empirical
Examination among Israeli Nurses. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(4) : 386-405.
Coulter, M.,K. 2002. Strategic Management in Action. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, The United
States of America.
Curtis, B. M. and Payne, E. A. 2008. An Examination of Contextual Factors and Individual Characteristics
Affecting Technology Implementation Decision in Auditing. International Journal of Accounting
Information System, 9(2): 104-121.
Davidson, Ronald A., and Dean Neu. 1993. A note of the association between audit firm size and audit.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 9; 479.
DeAngelo, L. 1981. Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting &Economics, 3: 183.
Dedoulis, E. 2006. The Code of Ethics and the Development of the Auditing Profession in Greece, The
Period 1992-2002. Accounting Forum, 30: 155-178.
Dittenhofer, M. 2001. Internal Auditing Effectiveness : An Expansion of Present Methods. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 16(8): 443-450.
Dorotta, I. and others. 2006. Teaching and Evaluating Professionalism for Anesthesiology Residents.
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 18(2): 148-160.
Elliott, R. 2002. Twenty-First Century Assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &Theory, 3: 139-146.
Engel, E., Hayes, R. and Wang, X. 2007. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Firms Going-Private Decisions.
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44: 116-145.
Ettredge, M., Li, C. and Sun, L. 2006. The Impact of SOX Section 404 Internal Control Quality
Assessment on Audit Delay In the SOX Era. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 25: 1-23.
Favere-Marchesi, M. 2000. Audit Quality in ASEAN. The International Journal of Accounting, 35(1): 121-
149.
______ . 2006. Audit Review: The Impact of Discussion Timing and Familiarity. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 28: 53-64.
Flint, D. 1988.Philosophy and Principles of Auditing. London: Macmillan.
162
Foster, B.P., McClain, G. and Shastri, T. 2009. A Note on Perceptions of Auditors Internal Control Report
Mandated by the PCAOB: Can Reformatting the Report Enhance Perceived Value Added?.
Research in Accounting Regulation, 21: 63-67.
Garcia-Benau, Maria A. and Zorio, Ana. 2004. Audit Reports on Financial Statements Prepared
According to IASB Standards: Empirical Evidence from the European Union. International Journal
of Auditing, 8: 237-252.
Gendron, Y., Cooper, D.J., and Townley, B. 2007. The construction of auditing expertise in measuring
government performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32: 101-129.
Geiger, Marshall A. and Raghunandan, K. 2002. Auditor Tenure and Audit Reporting Failures. A Journal
of Practice and Theory, 21(1): 67-78.
Goh, S. C. and Richards, G. 1997. Benchmarking the Learning Capacity of Organizations. Journal of
European Management, 15(5): 575-583.
Govindarajan, V. 1984. Appropriateness of Accounting Data in Performance Evaluation: An Empirical
Examination of Environmental Uncertainty as an Intervening Variable. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 9(2): 125-136.
Guiral, Andres., Ruiz, Emiliano. and Rodgers, Waymond. 2011. To What Extent are Auditors Attitudes
toward the Evidence Influenced by the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and
Theory, 30(1): 173-190.
Habib, A. and B.U. Bhuiyan. 2010. Audit Firm Industry Specialization and the Audit Report Lag. Journal
of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 133-146,
Hilton, S. and Southgate, L. 2007. Professionalism in Medical Education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23(3): 265-279.
Hoffman, V., and Zimbelman, M. 2009. Do Strategic Reasoning and Brainstorming Help Auditors
Change Their Standard Audit Procedures in Response to Fraud Risk?. The Accounting Review, 84: 811.
Hopwood, W., McKeown, J.C. and Mutchler, J. F. 1989. A Test of the Incremental Explanatory Power of
Opinions Qualified for Consistency and Uncertainty. The Accounting Review, 64(1): 28-48.
Hui, L. T. and Fatt, Q. K. 2007. Strategic Organizational Conditions for Risks Reduction and Earnings
Management : A Combined Strategy and Auditing Paradigm. Accounting Forum, 31: 179-201.
Ismail, Zubaidah. and Trotman, K. T. 1999. Audit Review Effectiveness in an Analytical Review Task.
International Journal of Auditing, 3: 21-28.
Jeppesen K.K. 1998. Reinventing auditing, Redefining Consulting and Independence. The European
Accounting Review, 7(3): 517-539.
Jermias, J. and Gani, L. 2004. Integrating Business Strategy, Organizational Configurations and
Management Accounting System with Business unit Effectiveness: a fitness landscape approach.
Management Accounting Research, 15(2): 179-200.
Joshi , M., Kathuria, R. and Porth, S. J. 2003. Alignment of Strategic Priorities and Performance: An
Integration of operations and Strategic management Perspectives. Journal of Operations
management, 21(3) : 353-369.
Karapetrovic, Stanislav and Walter Willborn. 1998. Integrated Audit of Management Systems. The
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(7): 694.
163
Karcher, J. N. 1996. Auditors Ability to Discern the Presence of Ethical Problems. Journal of Business
Ethics. 15(10): 1033-1050.
Kend M. 2002. Specialisation in the market for audit and related services: supply and demand side
characteristics at industry and client levels, PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne.
Koletar, J. W. 2006. Intelligence Gathering and the Future of Internal Audit. CPA Journal, 76 (4): 16-17.
Krishnan, J. 2005. Audit Committee Quality and Internal Control: An Empirical Analysis. The Accounting
Review, 80(2): 649-75.
Krumwiede, K. R., Suessmair, A. and MacDonald, J. 2007. An Exploratory Study of the Factors Affecting
the Implementation Success of German Cost Accounting Methods.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1003833.
Lan, G. and others. 2008. A Study of Relationship between Personal Values and Moral Reasoning of
Undergraduate Business Students. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(12): 121-139.
Li, H., Pincus, M. and Rego, S. 2008. Market reaction to Events Surrounding the Sabanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and Earnings Management. Journal of Law and Economics, 51: 111-134.
Lim-u-sanno, Kulwadee and Ussahawanitchakit, Phapurke. 2009. Audit risk judgment and performance of
Thai auditors: An empirical investigation of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Academy of Business and Economic, 9: 59-82.
Lopes, P.T. and Rodrigues, L. L. 2007. Accounting for Financial Instruments : An Analysis of the
Determinants of Disclosure in the Portuguese Stock Exchange. The International Journal of Accounting.
42(1): 25-56.
Mano, R. M. 2003. Accounting profession, heal thyself: A matter of survival. The CPA Accounting, 35(1):
121-149.
Martin, R.D. 2007. Through the Ethics Looking Glass: Another View of the World of Auditors and Ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics, 70: 5-14.
McKnight, C. A. and William F. 2011. Wright Characteristics of Relatively High-Performance Auditors.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice &Theory, 30( 1): 191206.
McMillan, J.J. and White, R.A. 1993. Auditors' Belief Revisions and Evidence Search: The Effect of
Hypothesis Frame, Confirmation Bias, and Professional Skepticism. The Accounting Review, 68(3):
443-465.
McMillan, P. Keith. 2004. Trust and the Virtues: A Solution to the Accounting Scandals?. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 15(6-7): 943-953.
Meigs, W.B. and Whittington, R.O. 1989. Principles of Auditing. Irvin.
Miller, C. L., Fedor, D. B., and Ramsay, R. J. 2006. Effects of Discussion of Audit Reviews on Auditors
Motivation and Performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18: 135-146.
Nelson, M. 2009. A Model and Literature Review of Professional Skepticism in Auditing. Auditing: A
Journal of Practice and Theory, 28(2): 1-34.
Newman, D.P., Patterson, E.R., and Smith, J.R. 2005. The Role of Auditing in Investor Protection. The
Accounting Review, 80(1): 289-313.
164
Nicolaou, I. A. 2000. A Contingency Model of Perceived Effectiveness in Accounting Information
Systems: Organizational Coordination and Control Effects. International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems, 1(2) : 91-105.
Nunnally, J.C., and Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw- Hill.
ODonnell, E. and Schultz, J.2005. The Halo Effect in Business Risk Audits: Can Strategy Risk
Assessment Bias Auditor Judgment About Accounting Details?. The Accounting Review, 80(3):
921-933.
Payne, E. A., Ramsay, R. J. and Bamber, E. M. 2010. The Effect of Alternative Types of Review on
Auditors Procedures and Performance. A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29: 207-220.
Peecher, M., Schwartz, R. and Solomon, I. 2007. Its all about quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems
auditing. Accounting Organization and Society, 32(4-5): 463-486.
Pentland, B.T. 1993. Getting Comfortable with the Numbers: Auditing and the Micro-Production of Macro-
Order. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18: 605-620.
Power, M. 1999. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University.
Ramsay, R. J. 1994. Senior/Manager Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance. Journal of
Accounting Research, 32: 127-135.
Real, J. C., Leal, A.and Roldn, J. L. 2006. Information technology as a determinant of organizational
learning and technological distinctive competencies. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4): 505-
521.
Reimers, J. L. and Fennema, M. G. 1999. The Audit Review Process and Sensitivity to Information
Source Objectivity. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 18(1): 117-123.
Roberts, R.W. and Dwyer, P.D. 1998. An Analysis of Materiality and Reasonable Assurance: Professional
Mystification and Paternalism in Auditing. Journal of Business Ethics. 17(5): 569-578.
Shoommuangpak, Pornitp and Phapurke Ussahawanitchakit. 2009. Audit strategy of CPAs in Thailand:
Audit effectiveness and Stakeholder acceptance. International Journal of Business Strategy, 9;
136-258,
Smith, G. L. 2005. Medical Professionalism and Generation Gap. The American Journal of Medicine,
118(4): 439-442.
Solomon, I. and Trotman, K.T. 2003. Experimental Judgment and Decision Research in Auditing: The
First 25 Years of AOS. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28: 395-412.
Stemler and others. 2009. Using the theory of successful intelligence as a framework for developing
assessment in AP physics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34: 195-209.
Sternberg R. J. 2005. The Theory of Successful Intelligent. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 3: 189-
202.
Struweg, L. N., and Meintjes, C. 2008. The Professionalism Debate in South African Public Relations.
Public Relations Review, 34(3): 224-229.
Tan, H.T., and Libby, R. 1997. Tacit Managerial versus Technical Knowledge as Determinants of Audit
Expertise in the Field. Journal of Accounting Research, 35: 97-113.
165
_______. and Jamal, K. 2001. Do Auditors Objectively Evaluate Their Subordinates Work?. The
Accounting Review, 76: 99-110.
_______. and Shankar, Premila Gowri. 2010. Audit Reviewers Evaluation of Subordinates Work Quality.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(1): 251-266.
_______. and Trotman, K. T. 2003. Reviewers Responses to Anticipated Stylization Attempts by
Preparers of Audit Workpapers. The Accounting Review, 78(2): 581-604.
Tillema, S. 2005. Towards an Integrated Contingency Framework for MAS Sophistication: Case
Studies on the Scope of Accounting Instruments in Dutch Power and Gas Companies.
Management Accounting Research, 16(1): 101-129.
Ulaga, W. and Chacour, S. 2001. Measuring Customer Perceived Value in Business Markets. Industrial
Marketing Management, 30: 525-540.
Watts, R. L. and Zimmerman, J. L. 1983. Agency Problems, Auditing, and The Theory of the Firm: Some
Evidence. Journal of Law & Economics, 26(3): 613-633.
_______. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weber, R. 1980. Some Characteristics of the Free Recall of Computer Controls by EDP Auditors. Journal
of Accounting Research, 18 (1):214-241.
Weis, D. and Schank, M. J. 2000. Instrument to Measure Professional Nursing Values. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 32(2): 201- 204.
Wilk, T. J. 2002. Predecisional Distortion of Evidence as a Consequence of Real-Time Audit Review. The
Accounting Review, 7: 51-71.
Wilks, T. and Zimbelman, M. 2004. Decomposition of Fraud Risk Detection Assessments and Auditors
Sensitivity to Fraud Cues. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(3): 719-746.
Wong, P. S. P. and Cheung, S. O. 2008. An analysis of relationship between learning behavior and
performance improvement of contracting organizations. International Journal of project
management. 26(2): 112-123.
Wouters, M. and Wilderom, C. 2008. Developing Performance-Measurement Systems as Enabling
Formalization: A Longitudinal Field Study of a Logistics Department. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 33: 488-516.
Yamane, T. 1973. Statistics and Introductory Analysis. New York: Haper International Edition, 26(3): 613
633.
Yang, W., Moyes, G.D., Din, H.F.M., and Omar, N.H. 2010. Demographic factors that influence Malaysian
Auditors' perspective of the fraud-detecting effectiveness of red flag. Journal of business and
accounting, 3(1): 81-109.
Zhou, L., and Wong, A. 2008. Exploring the influence of product conspicuousness and social compliance
on purchasing motives of young Chinese consumers for foreign brands. Journal of Consumer
Behavior, 7(6); 470-483.
166
AUTHOR PROFILES:
Sudarat Pongsatitpat earned her M.B.A. from University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, Thailand in
2001. Currently, she is a Ph.D. (Candidate) in Accounting at Mahasarakham Business School,
Mahasarakham University, Thailand.
Dr. Phapruke Ussahawanitchakit earned his Ph.D. from Washington State University, USA in 2002.
Currently, he is an associate professor of accounting and Dean of Mahasarakham Business School,
Mahasarakham University, Thailand.
Dr. Kesinee Muenthaisong earned her Ph.D. from Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology,
Japan in 2006.Currently, she is a lecturer of business economics and a Director of Academic Services of
Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, Thailand.