Analisis Ketepatan Pemberian Opini Akuntan Publik di Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.35912/gaar.v1i2.1961
Published: May 3, 2023

Abstract:

Purpose: This study aims to explain the problem of the accuracy of giving opinions given by public accountants in Indonesia, using framing theory analysis. In this study we developed an analysis of the accuracy of opinions in which we observed matters that were the causes of non-compliance by public accountants, so as to be able to provide more complex and in-depth information to understand attitudes, perceptions, emotions, beliefs about the motives and behavior of informants.

Methodology: The informants for this study were 12 Public Accountants who had permission from the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia to sign the Independent Auditor's Report. Data collection techniques were using semi-structured interviews, testing the validity of the data using the triangulation method and analyzing and processing data using Nvivo software version 12.

Results: The results of the study show that the accuracy of giving a Public Accountant's opinion is influenced by: Auditor, Client Integrity, Public Accountant Integrity and Audit Planning. The violation committed by the Public Accountant is giving an opinion that is not in accordance with the actual situation, due to: not complying with Standard Auditing (SA) 230 regarding Audit Documentation, not complying with SA 500 Audit Evidence, providing audit services not through KAP, providing audit services but the license has been revoked, audit reports are not supported by working papers, receive audit assignments that are being audited by another KAP, have not complied with SA 510 Initial Balances, have not implemented Quality Control Standards, have not fully reported audit clients, and have not maintained working papers.

Limitations: This study examines the existence of Framing Theory, Auditing understanding, and the problems of the practice of the Public Accountant Profession regarding the implementation of Professional Ethics and Laws. To provide input to the practice of Public Accountants that in carrying out practices must be in accordance with Auditing Standards and applicable rules.

Keywords:
1. Public Accountant Opinion
2. Qualitative
3. Auditor
4. Client Integrity
5. Public Accountant Integrity
6. Audit Planning
7. Framing Theory
Authors:
1 . Lukmanul Hakim Rusdi
2 . Yuliansyah Yuliansyah
3 . Rindu Rika Gamayuni
View PDF
How to Cite
Rusdi, L. H. ., Yuliansyah , Y. ., & Gamayuni, R. R. (2023). Analisis Ketepatan Pemberian Opini Akuntan Publik di Indonesia . Goodwood Akuntansi Dan Auditing Reviu, 1(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.35912/gaar.v1i2.1961
Download Citation
  1. Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  2. BibTeX

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Issue & Section
Vol. 1 No. 2 (2023): Mei
Articles
References

    Agoes, S. (2016). AUDITING Petunjuk Praktis Pemeriksaan Akuntan oleh Kantor Akuntan Publik. Edisi 4. Jakarta: Salemba Empat. .

    Arens, A. A., Elder, & Beasly. (2010). Auditing and Assurance Services: Intergrated Approach Thirteenth Edition. Jakarta: Erlangga.

    Asere, A., Stephen, K., & Arnold M, W. (2004). The effectiveness of Alternatives Risk Assessment and Program Tools in a fraud Setting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), 325-352.

    Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 611-639.

    Chan, S. L., Koh, H. C., & Low, C. K. (1992). Making Auditing Decisions: The Bayesian Decision?tree Approach. Managerial Auditing Journal.

    Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of communication, 57(1), 99-118.

    Cresswell, J. W. (2015). Penelitian Kualitatif dan Desain Riset: memilih diantara lima pendekatan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

    Darmawan, J., & Roba’in, H. (2022). Pengaruh Keberagaman Gender dan Pengungkapan Risiko Terhadap Efisiensi Investasi. Goodwood Akuntansi dan Auditing Reviu, 1(1), 29-47. doi:10.35912/gaar.v1i1.1484

    De Loo, I., & Lowe, A. (2017). “[T] here are known knowns… things we know that we know”: Some reflections on the nature and practice of interpretive accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

    Fay, R., Jenkins, J. G., & Popova, V. (2015). Effects of awareness of prior-year testing strategies and engagement risk on audit decisions. Managerial Auditing Journal.

    Ferry, L., Zakaria, Z., Zakaria, Z., & Slack, R. (2018). Framing public governance in Malaysia: Rhetorical appeals through accrual accounting. Paper presented at the Accounting Forum.

    Gamayuni, R. R. (2016). Efektivitas Fungsi Audit Internal: Faktor yang mempengaruhi, dan Implikasinya terhadap Kualitas Pelaporan Keuangan (Survei Pada Inspektorat Pemerintah Provinsi/Kota/Kabupaten di Pulau Jawa).

    Gofman, E. (1986). Frame Analysis : An Essay on the Organization of Experience, 2nd ed., Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA.

    Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.

    Habib, A. (2013). A meta?analysis of the determinants of modified audit opinion decisions. Managerial Auditing Journal.

    Hagaman, A. K., & Wutich, A. (2017). How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study. Field methods, 29(1), 23-41.

    Halim, A., & Adianto, A. (2021). Strategi Pengembangan Desa Melalui Pemanfaatan Dana Desa di Desa Sako Margasari. Jurnal Studi Ilmu Sosial dan Politik, 1(2), 87-99.

    Hellena, S. (2015). PENGARUH ETIKA PROFESI, INDEPENDENSI, KECERDASAN INTELEKTUAL, KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL, DAN KECERDASAN SPIRITUAL TERHADAP KETEPATAN PEMBERIAN OPINI AUDITOR (Studi empiris pada Kantor Akuntan Publik kota Medan dan Pekanbaru). Jurnal Online Mahasiswa (JOM) Bidang Ilmu Ekonomi, 2(2), 1-15.

    Heri, S. (2017). Auditing & Asurans Pemeriksaan Akuntansi Berbasis Standar Audit Internasional: Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.

    Jo, H., & Kim, Y. (2008). Ethics and disclosure: A study of the financial performance of firms in the seasoned equity offerings market. Journal of business Ethics, 80, 855-878.

    Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization science, 19(5), 729-752.

    Khomsiyah, & Lindrianasari. (2017). The influence of accounting education on the prospects of becoming a member of the chartered accountant profession: opportunities, challenges and expectations of Indonesia towards the ASEAN economic community. International Journal of Monetary Economics and Finance, 10(3-4), 257-269.

    Libby, R., & Frederick, D. M. (1990). Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of accounting research, 28(2), 348-367.

    Messier, W. F. G., Prawitt, S. M., & Douglas, F. (2014). Jasa Audit & Assurance. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

    Nida, D. R. P. P., Wirakusuma, M. G., & Putra, I. N. W. A. (2018). Economics and Business Faculty, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia.

    Ningwati, G., Septiyanti, R., & Desriani, N. (2022). Pengaruh Environment, Social and Governance Disclosure terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan. Goodwood Akuntansi dan Auditing Reviu, 1(1), 67-78. doi:10.35912/gaar.v1i1.1500

    Pattilima, H. (2010). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Alfabeta, Bandung.

    Puspitosarie, Endah, & Marjani. (2012). Pengaruh Audit Fee, Kondisi Perusahaan Dan Profesionalisme Serta Hubungan Klien Dengan Akuntan Terhadap Pendapat/opini Akuntan Berkaitan Dengan Independensi Studi Pada Kantor Akuntan Publik Di Kota Malang. Jurnal Manajemen dan Akuntansi, 1(1), 112373.

    Rharasati, A., & Suputra, I. D. (2014). Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Auditor Dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Untuk Memberikan Opini Audit. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 3(3), 147-162.

    Roussy, M., & Brivot, M. (2016). Internal audit quality: a polysemous notion? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

    Sidik, A., & Mulya, B. W. (2012). Pendekatan Analisis Data Menggunakan NVivo-software untuk Penelitian Desain Logo Museum Nasional Jakarta. Nirmana, 13(1), 1-4.

    Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative health research, 17(10), 1372-1380.

    Sugiyono, S. (2017). Buku Metode Penelitian Kombinasi: Bagian 3 Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Alfabeta Bandung. hal 283-387.

    Sulistyo, P. B. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif: Metode Analisis Framing. Model Perkuliahan, Fakultas Ilmu Komunikasi, Universitas Mercu Buana.

    .

    Suraida, I. (2005). Pengaruh etika, kompetensi, pengalaman audit dan risiko audit terhadap skeptisisme profesional auditor dan ketepatan pemberian opini akuntan publik. Sosiohumaniora, 7(3), 186.

    Widagdo, R. (2002). Analisis Pengaruh Atribut-Atribut Kualitas Audit Terhadap Kepuasan Klien (Stud: Empiris Pada Perusahaan Yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta). PROGRAM PASCASARJANA UNIVERSITAS DIPONEGORO.

    Yanti, N. R., Komalasari, A., & Andi, K. (2022). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Leverage, dan Struktur Modal terhadap Nilai Perusahaan dengan Kebijakan Deviden sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Goodwood Akuntansi dan Auditing Reviu, 1(1), 49-65. doi:10.35912/gaar.v1i1.1476

    Yuliansyah, Y. (2012). The Effect of the Reliance on Integrative Strategic Performance Measurement (RISPM) on Strategic Outcomes.

    Zebda, A., Cargile, B., Christ, M., Christ, R., & Johnston, J. (1996). Evaluating audit decision models: A methodological perspective. Managerial Finance, 22(11), 54-83.

    Zuca, S. (2015). Audit evidence–necessity to qualify a pertinent opinion. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 700-704.

  1. Agoes, S. (2016). AUDITING Petunjuk Praktis Pemeriksaan Akuntan oleh Kantor Akuntan Publik. Edisi 4. Jakarta: Salemba Empat. .
  2. Arens, A. A., Elder, & Beasly. (2010). Auditing and Assurance Services: Intergrated Approach Thirteenth Edition. Jakarta: Erlangga.
  3. Asere, A., Stephen, K., & Arnold M, W. (2004). The effectiveness of Alternatives Risk Assessment and Program Tools in a fraud Setting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), 325-352.
  4. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 611-639.
  5. Chan, S. L., Koh, H. C., & Low, C. K. (1992). Making Auditing Decisions: The Bayesian Decision?tree Approach. Managerial Auditing Journal.
  6. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of communication, 57(1), 99-118.
  7. Cresswell, J. W. (2015). Penelitian Kualitatif dan Desain Riset: memilih diantara lima pendekatan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  8. Darmawan, J., & Roba’in, H. (2022). Pengaruh Keberagaman Gender dan Pengungkapan Risiko Terhadap Efisiensi Investasi. Goodwood Akuntansi dan Auditing Reviu, 1(1), 29-47. doi:10.35912/gaar.v1i1.1484
  9. De Loo, I., & Lowe, A. (2017). “[T] here are known knowns… things we know that we know”: Some reflections on the nature and practice of interpretive accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
  10. Fay, R., Jenkins, J. G., & Popova, V. (2015). Effects of awareness of prior-year testing strategies and engagement risk on audit decisions. Managerial Auditing Journal.
  11. Ferry, L., Zakaria, Z., Zakaria, Z., & Slack, R. (2018). Framing public governance in Malaysia: Rhetorical appeals through accrual accounting. Paper presented at the Accounting Forum.
  12. Gamayuni, R. R. (2016). Efektivitas Fungsi Audit Internal: Faktor yang mempengaruhi, dan Implikasinya terhadap Kualitas Pelaporan Keuangan (Survei Pada Inspektorat Pemerintah Provinsi/Kota/Kabupaten di Pulau Jawa).
  13. Gofman, E. (1986). Frame Analysis : An Essay on the Organization of Experience, 2nd ed., Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA.
  14. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
  15. Habib, A. (2013). A meta?analysis of the determinants of modified audit opinion decisions. Managerial Auditing Journal.
  16. Hagaman, A. K., & Wutich, A. (2017). How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study. Field methods, 29(1), 23-41.
  17. Halim, A., & Adianto, A. (2021). Strategi Pengembangan Desa Melalui Pemanfaatan Dana Desa di Desa Sako Margasari. Jurnal Studi Ilmu Sosial dan Politik, 1(2), 87-99.
  18. Hellena, S. (2015). PENGARUH ETIKA PROFESI, INDEPENDENSI, KECERDASAN INTELEKTUAL, KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL, DAN KECERDASAN SPIRITUAL TERHADAP KETEPATAN PEMBERIAN OPINI AUDITOR (Studi empiris pada Kantor Akuntan Publik kota Medan dan Pekanbaru). Jurnal Online Mahasiswa (JOM) Bidang Ilmu Ekonomi, 2(2), 1-15.
  19. Heri, S. (2017). Auditing & Asurans Pemeriksaan Akuntansi Berbasis Standar Audit Internasional: Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.
  20. Jo, H., & Kim, Y. (2008). Ethics and disclosure: A study of the financial performance of firms in the seasoned equity offerings market. Journal of business Ethics, 80, 855-878.
  21. Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization science, 19(5), 729-752.
  22. Khomsiyah, & Lindrianasari. (2017). The influence of accounting education on the prospects of becoming a member of the chartered accountant profession: opportunities, challenges and expectations of Indonesia towards the ASEAN economic community. International Journal of Monetary Economics and Finance, 10(3-4), 257-269.
  23. Libby, R., & Frederick, D. M. (1990). Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of accounting research, 28(2), 348-367.
  24. Messier, W. F. G., Prawitt, S. M., & Douglas, F. (2014). Jasa Audit & Assurance. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
  25. Nida, D. R. P. P., Wirakusuma, M. G., & Putra, I. N. W. A. (2018). Economics and Business Faculty, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia.
  26. Ningwati, G., Septiyanti, R., & Desriani, N. (2022). Pengaruh Environment, Social and Governance Disclosure terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan. Goodwood Akuntansi dan Auditing Reviu, 1(1), 67-78. doi:10.35912/gaar.v1i1.1500
  27. Pattilima, H. (2010). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Alfabeta, Bandung.
  28. Puspitosarie, Endah, & Marjani. (2012). Pengaruh Audit Fee, Kondisi Perusahaan Dan Profesionalisme Serta Hubungan Klien Dengan Akuntan Terhadap Pendapat/opini Akuntan Berkaitan Dengan Independensi Studi Pada Kantor Akuntan Publik Di Kota Malang. Jurnal Manajemen dan Akuntansi, 1(1), 112373.
  29. Rharasati, A., & Suputra, I. D. (2014). Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Auditor Dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Untuk Memberikan Opini Audit. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 3(3), 147-162.
  30. Roussy, M., & Brivot, M. (2016). Internal audit quality: a polysemous notion? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
  31. Sidik, A., & Mulya, B. W. (2012). Pendekatan Analisis Data Menggunakan NVivo-software untuk Penelitian Desain Logo Museum Nasional Jakarta. Nirmana, 13(1), 1-4.
  32. Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative health research, 17(10), 1372-1380.
  33. Sugiyono, S. (2017). Buku Metode Penelitian Kombinasi: Bagian 3 Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Alfabeta Bandung. hal 283-387.
  34. Sulistyo, P. B. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif: Metode Analisis Framing. Model Perkuliahan, Fakultas Ilmu Komunikasi, Universitas Mercu Buana.
  35. .
  36. Suraida, I. (2005). Pengaruh etika, kompetensi, pengalaman audit dan risiko audit terhadap skeptisisme profesional auditor dan ketepatan pemberian opini akuntan publik. Sosiohumaniora, 7(3), 186.
  37. Widagdo, R. (2002). Analisis Pengaruh Atribut-Atribut Kualitas Audit Terhadap Kepuasan Klien (Stud: Empiris Pada Perusahaan Yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta). PROGRAM PASCASARJANA UNIVERSITAS DIPONEGORO.
  38. Yanti, N. R., Komalasari, A., & Andi, K. (2022). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Leverage, dan Struktur Modal terhadap Nilai Perusahaan dengan Kebijakan Deviden sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Goodwood Akuntansi dan Auditing Reviu, 1(1), 49-65. doi:10.35912/gaar.v1i1.1476
  39. Yuliansyah, Y. (2012). The Effect of the Reliance on Integrative Strategic Performance Measurement (RISPM) on Strategic Outcomes.
  40. Zebda, A., Cargile, B., Christ, M., Christ, R., & Johnston, J. (1996). Evaluating audit decision models: A methodological perspective. Managerial Finance, 22(11), 54-83.
  41. Zuca, S. (2015). Audit evidence–necessity to qualify a pertinent opinion. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 700-704.