CC BY
92
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2017-12.04
EFFECT OF QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM ON AUDIT QUALITY WITH PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENTS AS A MODERATION VARIABLE
Ramadhani R.*, Sudarma M., Achsin M.
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Brawijaya, Indonesia *E-mail: ranitaramadhani@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study aims to test the effect of every element of Quality Control System (QCS) that is leadership responsibilities for quality on audit, relevant ethical requirements, acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements, assignment of engagement team, engagement performance, monitoring, and documentation on audit quality as well as to test whether the professional commitment moderate effect of every element of QCS on audit quality. The population was the staff auditors working in public accounting firms domiciled in Jakarta City, especially Central Jakarta area with the drawing of 84 respondents. The statistical method used was SEM PLS with the help of SmartPLS application. The results of this study indicate that from seven elements of QCS, only relevant ethical requirements that affect on audit quality. Furthermore, the study also found that professional commitment cannot moderate the relationship between the seven elements of QCS on audit quality.
KEY WORDS
Quality control system, audit quality, professional commitment.
In the public accounting profession audit quality becomes a thing to be considered because the public and the users of financial statements put great confidence in the results of the work of public accountants in auditing corporate financial statements (Christiawan, 2005). But in Indonesia, there are several cases of public accountants and public accounting firms violating the Public Accountant Professional Standards (SPAP), so they subject to sanctions for the freezing of licenses until the revocation of licenses by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia (www.pppk.kemenkeu.go.id). This phenomenon indicates that not all public accountants and public accounting firms produce good audit quality.
One of the efforts to improve audit quality is by implementing quality control system (QCS) (SPAP; Susanto dan Pratita, 2012; Fauji, 2015; Renianawati et al, 2016). QCS provides reasonable assurance that the public accounting firm and its personnel comply with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and reports issued by the firm or engagement partners are appropriate in the circumstances (SPM 1). In addition, the implementation of QCS also provides guidance for public accounting firm and Public Accountant in implementing quality control of the services produced by it (SPAP). The higher the level of QCS implementation conducted by the public accounting firm, the higher the level of trust of audit quality given to the client (Pramana, 2014; Liliawati (2006); Ramadhani (2013); Wijayanto (2014), dan Renianawati et al., 2016).
In SPAP 2013, the QCS is contained in the Quality Control Standard 1 (SPM1) and Standard Audit (SA) 220. SPM 1 and SA 220 states that the SPM consists of policies and procedures, which the policies and procedures shall include all elements specified in the standards. The policies and procedures are used as guidelines for public accounting firms to control the quality of services produced by public accounting firms. From the above explanation can be concluded that the elements that exist in the QCS are expected to improve the audit quality of public accounting firms.
Nasution (2008) shows the elements of QCS that affect the quality of audits through good field work are supervision, consultation, and inspection. Maulidiani and Witjaksono (2013) proved in their research that the implementation of QCS affect the quality of audit with
Independence as the dominant element affecting audit quality. Meanwhile, in Fauji (2015), not only the independence that becomes an element in the QCS that affects audit quality but personnel assignment, consultation, supervision are also elements affecting audit quality.
The difference of research result about the elements of QCS that affect the quality of audit indicate that not all elements in QCS have an effect on audit quality audit (Maulidiani dan Witjaksono, 2013; Fauji, 2015). It motivates the authors to re-examine the effect of QCS elements on audit quality and motivate the authors to add professional commitment as a moderating variable in this study.
Jeffery et al. (1996) revealed that public accountants with professional commitment regards obedience to rules is important, so public accountants are more likely to comply with the standards and rules set by the profession (Lui et al., 2001) and public accountants will not engage in adverse activities for the organization (Greenfield et al., 2008).
In this case, QCS is one of the standards that must be owned by public accounting firm that serve as guidance in implementing quality control of the services produced by public accounting firm. Therefore, professional commitment may be able to moderate the effect of the QCS elements of the public accounting firm on audit quality.
Gaps between the study and previous studies are (1) This study uses all the elements contained in the QCS that are regulated in SA 220, that is leadership responsibilities for quality on audit, relevant ethical requirements, acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements, assignment of engagement team, engagement performance, monitoring, and documentation as variables in this study to predict the effect on audit quality. Previous studies have used QCS elements contained in Quality Control Standard Section 100 which is valid since 1998 and not yet adjusted to International Standards on Auditing (ISA). (2) This study adds moderation variable that is professional commitment which possibly can moderate he effect of the QCS elements of the public accounting firm on audit quality.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Leadership responsibilities for quality on audit (LRA). Leadership responsibilities for audit quality is policies and procedures designed to promote an internal culture recognizing that quality is essential in performing engagements and to provide reasonable assurance that the firm leadership is responsible for the quality of the Firm, as well as any person or persons assigned operational responsibility for the firm's system of quality control has sufficient and appropriate experience and ability, and the necessary authority, to assume that responsibility (SPM 1).
Relevant ethical requirements (RE). Relevant ethical requirements is policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the firm and its personnel comply with relevant ethical and independence requirements (SPM 1).
Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements (ACR). Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements is quality control policies and procedures to determine whether the engagement of the client will be accepted or continued by considering client's competence, capability and resources and integrity, and other information (SPM 1).
Assignment of engagement team (AE). Assignment of engagement team is the policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the assignment will be carried out by the appropriate personnel with the necessary competence, and capabilities to perform engagements in accordance with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements and to issue reports that are appropriate in the circumstances (SPM 1).
Engagement performance (EP). Engagement performance is a policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that engagements are performed in accordance with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements (SPM 1).
Monitoring (M). Monitoring is the policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the policies and procedures relating to the system of quality control are relevant, adequate, and operating effectively (SPM 1).
Documentation (D). Documentation is the policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that do documentation that proves the operation of each element of the quality control system (SPM 1).
Professional commitment (PC). Professional commitment is a belief in and acceptance of the goals and values of the profession, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the profession, and a definite desire to maintain membership in the profession (Aranya et al., 1981).
Audit quality (AQ). Audit quality is a probability that auditors will find violations in the client's accounting system and report the violation (De Angelo, 1981). Audit quality is also interpreted as the audit conducted in accordance with the standards (Rosnidah, 2010).
Research Model and Hypothesis Development:
This study will test audit quality produced by public accounting firms by using elements of QCS as a variable that affect audit quality and add professional commitment as a variable that moderate the relationship between QCS and audit quality.
QCS (SA 220)
Figures 1 - Research Model
Elements of QCS selected as the variables that affect the quality of the audit because in the QCS consisting of policies and procedures that should cover all elements in the QCS set by the standard to control the quality of services produced by public accounting firms (SPM 1 dan SA 220). The elements that exist in the quality control system is expected to improve the quality of public accounting firms audit. Therefore, the author uses elements that exist in the quality control system as independent variables that affect the quality of the audit as the dependent variable.
The elements in the quality control system relate to each other (SPM Section 100) and there is no element that matters most than any other (Fauji, 2015). Therefore, all elements of QCS are used as a variable to obtain a comprehensive view of the QCS and can be known which elements of the QCS affect audit quality. The hypothesis in this study that states the effect of QCS elements on audit quality, including:
H^ Leadership responsibilities for quality on audit affects audit quality;
H2: Relevant ethical requirements affects audit quality;
H3: Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements affects audit quality;
H4: Assignment of engagement team affects audit quality;
H5: Engagement performance affects audit quality;
H6: Monitoring affects audit quality;
H7: Documentation affects audit quality.
Professional commitment in the context of an auditor is defined as the extent to which the individual auditor considers the standards and codes of ethics as a key attribute of the profession and believes the standards and codes of ethics must be strictly binding and enforced within the domain of public accountants (Gendron et al., 2006). Meanwhile the QCS is a standard used as guidelines for public accounting firms to control the quality of services produced by public accounting firms (SPAP; SPM 1 dan SA 220). Based on the above explanation, it can be argued that professional commitment may be able to moderate the effect of the QCS elements of the public accounting firm on audit quality because the public accountant will be loyal to his profession by obeying the professional standards and codes of ethics. The hypothesis in this study that states professional commitment moderate effect of every element of QCS on audit quality, including:
H8: Professional commitment moderates the effect of leadership responsibilities for quality on audit on audit quality;
H9: Professional commitment moderates the effect of relevant ethical requirements on audit quality;
H10: Professional commitment moderates the effect of acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements on audit quality;
Hn: Professional commitment moderates the effect of assignment of engagement team on audit quality;
H12: Professional commitment moderates the effect of engagement performance on audit quality;
H13: Professional commitment moderates the effect of monitoring on audit quality;
H14: Professional commitment moderates the effect of documentation on audit quality.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
Samples. The sample were 84 staffs auditor who work in 20 public accounting firms domiciled in Jakarta City, especially Central Jakarta area.
Procedures. The data collection method is the convenience sampling technique because the researcher does not have a complete list of information on the total number of staffs auditor in the Central Jakarta public accounting firm and the researcher does not specify the criteria in staffs auditor that be sampled because all auditors are actors of activities directly related to the implementation of qCs and Quality Audit.
Measure and Research Instrument. The instruments used to measure the variables in this study are the instruments contained in the Quality Control Standard 1, AICPA Peer Review Program Questionnaire, and the instruments used in previous studies. Instruments of Leadership responsibilities for audit quality and Documentation are compiled by the Quality Control Standard 1 (SPM 1) which is also contained in the AICPA Peer Review Program Questionnaire. Instruments of Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements, Assignment of engagement team, Engagement performance, and Monitoring are compiled by the Quality Control Standard 1 (SPM 1) and used by Fauji (2015) which is also contained in the AICPA Peer Review Program Questionnaire. Instruments of relevant ethical requirements is compiled by the Quality Control Standard 1 (SPM 1) and used by Rizka and Amri (2012) and Fauji (2015) which is also contained in the AICPA Peer Review Program Questionnaire. Instruments of professional commitment is developed and has been used by Halim (2013). Instruments of audit quality is compiled by Hapsari (2007) and Wardhani (2014).
The application used to analyze the data was the smartPLS. Each of them was measured using Likert scale from 1 (one) to 5 (five). 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= neutral, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree.
RESULTS OF STUDY
Before test the hypothesis, the researchers first test on the instrument in this study. The questionnaire with 46 questions first tested the validity and reliability to test the feasibility of the questionnaire as a data collection tool.
Validity Test Results. Based on the result of convergence validity test known that the value of AVE and Communality of each construct is more than 0.5 and factor loading value for each indicator is more than 0.7. From the discriminant validity test results known that the overall value of cross loading for each indicator is above 0.7. An overview of the convergence validity test can be seen in Table 1, while an overview of the discriminant validity test can be seen in Table 3. With the fulfillment of convergence and discriminant validity test then all constructs and indicators in this study are considered valid.
Reliability Test Results. Based on the results of reliability test known that all the constructs used in this study has value of the reliability composite more than 0.7 so it can be concluded that the entire construct has satisfied the reliability test. The reliability test overview can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1 - Convergent Validity
Indicator Factor Loading AVE Communally Composite Reliability
Leadership LRA1 0,752
responsibilities LRA2 0734 0,613 0,613 0,825
foraudit quality LRA3 0,856
RE1 0,875
Relevant RE2 0,866
ethical RE3 0,879 0,683 0,683 0,914
requirements RE4 0787
RE6 0711
Acceptance and continuance of client ACR1 0744
ACR2 0,858
ACR3 0,810 0.664 0,664 0,908
relationships and certain engagements ACR4 0,879
ACR5 0771
Assignment of engagement team AE2 0797
AE3 0,895 0,697 0,697 0,901
AE4 0,885
AE5 0753
EP1 0,326
EP3 0,806
Engagement performance EP6 0738
EP7 0788 0,609 0,609 0,916
EP9 0750
EF10 0,785
EP11 0766
and Reliability Testing Result
Indicator Factor Loading AVE Communality Composite Reliability
M1 0,823
Monitoring M 2 0796 0,626 0,26 0,870
M3 0740
M 5 0.804
□ 1 0.873
Documentation □2 0.874 0,741 0,741 0,896
□3 0.835
PC1 0.849
PCS 0.723
PC7 0,818
Professional PC 8 0,752 0,663 0,663 0,940
commitment PC 9 0.882
PC10 0.872
PC11 0.846
PC15 0.753
AQ3 0.868
AQ4 0.878
AQS 0.853
Audit quality AQ7 0.889 0,736 0,736 0,951
AQ8 0.887
AQ10 0.815
AQ11 0,813
Table 2 - Hypothesis Testing result
Hypothesis Construct Original Sample T-Statistics Result
H1 LRA -> AQ 0,257 1,786 Rejected
H2 RE -> AQ 0,486 3,020 Accepted
H3 ACR -> AQ 0,089 0,683 Rejected
H4 AE -> AQ -0,110 0,466 Rejected
H5 EP -> AQ 0,098 0,384 Rejected
H6 M-> AQ 0,075 0,500 Rejected
H7 D -> AQ 0,119 0,827 Rejected
H8 LRA*PC -> AQ -0,012 0,092 Rejected
H9 RE*PC -> AQ -0,288 1,312 Rejected
H10 ACR*PC -> AQ 0,172 1,002 Rejected
H11 AE*PC -> AQ 0,031 0,138 Rejected
H12 EP*PC -> AQ 0,051 0,164 Rejected
H13 M*PC -> AQ -0,032 0,154 Rejected
H14 D*PC -> AQ 0,162 0,837 Rejected
Table 3 - Discriminant Validity Testing Results
LRA RE ACR AE EP M D PC AQ
LRA1 0,752 0,413 0.454 0.304 0,495 0,414 0,370 0.004 0.439
LRA2 0,734 0,343 0,498 0,336 0,478 0,411 0,414 0.039 0.430
LRA3 0,855 0,543 0,655 0,458 0,624 0,441 0,425 0,119 0.617
RE1 0,483 0,875 0,445 0.545 0,613 0,348 0,522 0,224 0.601
RE2 0,411 0,866 0,346 0,499 0,614 0,407 0,563 0,125 0.705
RE3 0,477 0,879 0.401 0.460 0.601 0,462 0,579 0,236 0.774
RE4 0.506 0,788 0,534 0,534 0,543 0,388 0,483 0,371 0.671
RE 6 0,484 0,711 0,439 0,462 0.603 0,484 0,466 0,101 0.455
ACR1 0,496 0.406 0,746 0,533 0,595 0,469 0,472 0,210 0.437
ACR2 0,544 0,368 0,858 0.584 0,552 0,602 0,451 0,220 0.407
ACR3 0,652 0,476 0,810 0,527 0,549 0,535 0,457 0,200 0 571
ACR4 0,612 0.502 0,879 0,642 0,627 0,557 0,456 0,204 0.586
ACR5 0,484 0,283 0,771 0,602 0,571 0,548 0411 0,221 0.333
AE2 0.378 0,424 0.504 0,797 0,592 0,448 0,282 0,073 0 351
AE3 0,396 0.539 0,667 0,895 0,753 0,657 0,472 0,246 0.515
AE4 0,382 0,578 0,568 0,885 0,733 0,682 0.566 0,349 0.514
AE5 0,467 0.440 0,619 0,753 0,736 0.706 0,465 0,209 0.361
EP1 0,538 0,625 0,482 0,679 0,826 0,686 0,619 0,145 0.543
EP3 0,432 0.548 0,547 0.805 0,806 0,629 0,488 0,293 0.524
EP6 0,423 0,632 0.550 0,712 0,738 0,453 0,478 0,302 0.544
EP7 0,537 0,570 0,479 0,573 0,788 0,544 0,404 0.068 0.481
EPS 0,712 0,498 0,633 0,528 0,750 0,524 0,414 0,222 0.569
EP10 0,572 0,522 0.609 0,653 0,785 0,672 0.605 0,123 0.529
EP11 0,533 0.496 0.566 0,658 0,766 0.690 0,516 0,157 0.468
LRA RE ACR AE EP M D PC AQ
Ml 0.500 0,472 0.580 0,589 0,683 0,823 0.564 0,096 0,491
M2 0.480 0,377 0,595 0,614 0,697 0,796 0.500 0,014 0,314
M3 0,239 0,268 0,435 0,625 0,447 0,740 0,315 0,092 0,255
M5 0,422 0.409 0,472 0,580 0,562 0,804 0,466 0,104 0,412
D1 0,428 0,478 0,461 0,431 0,522 0.600 0,873 0.065 0,487
D2 0.480 0,662 0,426 0,443 0.590 0,436 0,874 0,112 0.643
D3 0.409 0,467 0.558 0,546 0,549 0,546 0,835 0,171 0.494
PC1 0.042 0,076 0,226 0,234 0,160 0,101 0,136 0,849 0,154
PC6 0.042 0,027 0.056 0,049 0.057 0,033 0.007 0,723 0,136
PC7 0.055 0.193 0,203 0,148 0,151 0.069 0.008 0,818 0,239
PC8 0.097 0.063 0,124 0.081 0,037 0.046 0.069 0,752 0.007
PC9 0,013 0,253 0,237 0,277 0,194 0,105 0,202 0,882 0,269
PC10 0,121 0,315 0,287 0,312 0,321 0,154 0,205 0,872 0,275
PC11 0.090 0,355 0,215 0,321 0,328 0,180 0,159 0,846 0,280
PC15 0.057 0,167 0,209 0,196 0,142 0.064 0,034 0,753 0,201
AQ3 0,578 0,668 0,636 0,514 0,583 0,381 0,528 0,316 0,869
AQ4 0,571 0,729 0,486 0,442 0.584 0,420 0,552 0,219 0,879
AQ6 0.466 0,631 0.440 0,371 0,523 0,361 0,541 0,164 0,853
AQ7 0.565 0,745 0,552 0,554 0,635 0,449 0.530 0,280 0,889
AQ8 0.507 0,643 0,428 0,457 0,567 0,384 0.604 0,264 0,885
AQ10 0.609 0.680 0,574 0,428 0,524 0,465 0,518 0,244 0,818
AQ1I1 0,577 0,652 0,441 0,426 0.620 0,474 0,571 0,162 0,812
The final conclusion that can be obtained from the three tests that have been done is the constructs and indicators used in this study have been valid and reliable because have already qualified convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability.
Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing is done by comparing t-statistic value with t-table value. If t-statistic value > 1,96 then hypothesis accepted whereas if t-statistic value < 1,96 then hypothesis rejected. An overview of hypothesis testing results can be seen in Table 2.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This study examines audit quality by using QCS elements contained in SA 220. The results showed that leadership responsibilities for quality on audit do not affect audit quality. The results of this study are not in line with the existing statement in Question and Answer (TJ) 03 by the Assistance and Implementation Professional Standards Committee (KAISP) IAPI in 2015. When the leaders of the public accounting firm lack of understanding of the QCS, the public accounting firm becomes pessimistic in implementing the QCS (Ismail et al., 2008) so policies and procedures related to leadership responsibility for quality on audit that used as guidelines for public accounting firms in controlling the quality of their services will be less effective (Abidin, 2012). Furthermore, based on the results of the study known that relevant ethical requirements affect audit quality. The results of this study reinforce the results of previous studies that is Maulidiani & Witjaksono (2014) and Fauji (2015) which also states that independence in the relevant ethical requirements is an element in the QCS that affect audit quality.
The results also show that Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements as policies and procedures that must be owned by every public accounting firm does not affect audit quality. The results of this study support the results of Fauji (2015) but also denied the results of Putri (2010). This study found that Assignment of engagement team as the policies and procedures that must be owned by every public accounting firm does not affect the audit quality. The results of this study are contrary to the results of Fauji (2015). Assignment of engagement team is not fully effective in managing public accounting firms in maintaining the quality of their audits because of difficulties for
public accounting firms to specialize personnel on a particular client industry (Abidin, 2012). In addition, this study also found that engagement does not affect audit quality. The results of this study do not support the results of previous studies conducted by Nasution (2008) and Fauji (2015).
Based on the results of this study known that Monitoring does not affect audit quality. The results of this study do not support previous studies conducted by Nasution (2008) and Ikbal (2008). Inspection is a part of monitoring (SPM 1 dan SA 220) that its implementation takes a lot of time (Ismail et al, 2008) and costly so the public accounting firm considers that inspection is a form of waste (Fauji, 2015). The study also found that Documentation as the policies and procedures that must be owned by every public accounting firm does not affect audit quality. No effect of documentation on audit quality because the creation of documentation requires judgment and depends on a number of factors, such as firm size and number of offices as well as the nature and complexity and organizations of the practice of public accounting firms (Question and Answer 03 by the Assistance and Implementation Professional Standards Committee IAPI, 2015), in addition Documentation is a new element of QCS regulated in SPM 1 and SA 220 which previously was not present in SPM section 100.
This study also tested the professional commitment in moderating the relationship between QCS elements contained in SA 220 with audit quality. The results show that professional commitment does not moderate the relationship between the seven elements in QCS that is leadership responsibilities for quality on audit, relevant ethical requirements, acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements, assignment of engagement team, engagement performance, monitoring, and documentation with audit quality. The results of this study do not support the studies of Jeffery et al. (1996); Lui et al. (2001) Gendron et al. (2006); Greenfield et al. (2008); and Azis (2016) which states that professional commitment as loyalty of a public accountant to maintain and run its professional institutions, as well as making public accountants regard the standards and codes of ethics as a key attribute of the profession and believe the standards and codes of ethics must be strictly binding and enforced within the domain of public accountants so that public accountants are more likely to comply with standards and public rules and public accountants will not engage in adverse activities for the organization.
CONCLUSION
Based on the test results it can be concluded that:
From seven elements of the QCS contained in SA 220 that is leadership responsibilities for quality on audit, relevant ethical requirements, acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements, assignment of engagement team, engagement performance, monitoring, and documentation, only Relevant ethical requirements affect audit quality.
Professional commitment cannot moderate the relationship between the seven elements of QCS consisting of is leadership responsibilities for quality on audit, relevant ethical requirements, acceptance and continuance of client relationships and certain engagements, assignment of engagement team, engagement performance, monitoring, and documentation on audit quality.
REFERENCES
1. Abidin, R. N. 2012. Dilema Sistem Pengendalian Mutu Dalam Praktik Akuntan Publik. Retrieved from http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/10470.
2. AICPA Peer Review Program Questionnaire
3. Aranya, N. Pollock, J. dan Amernic, J. 1981. An Examination of Proffesional Commitment in Public Accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 6(4), 271-280.
4. Azis, N. A. 2016. Pengaruh Komitmen Profesional Terhadap Independensi Auditor dengan Moderasi Budaya Etis Organisasi dan Intensitas Persaingan Kantor Akuntan Publik. Disertasi. Universitas Brawijaya: Malang.
5. Christiawan, Y. J. 2005. Aktivitas Pengendalian Mutu Jasa Audit Laporan Keuangan Historis (Studi Kasus pada Beberapa Kantor Akuntan Publik di Surabaya). Jurnal Akuntansi & Keuangan, Vol. 7(1), 61-88.
6. DeANGELO, L. E. 1981. Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3, 183-199.
7. Fauji, L. 2015. Pengaruh Penerapan Sistem Pengendalian Mutu (SPM) Kantor Akuntan Publik (KAP) Terhadap Kualitas Audit (Studi pada Kantor Akuntan Publik di Kota Malang). Tesis. Universitas Brawijaya: Malang.
8. Gendron, Y. 2006. An Examination of the Ethical Commitment of Professional Accountants to Auditor Independence. Journal of Business Ethics 64, 169-193.
9. Greenfield, A. C., Norman, C. S., and Wier, B. 2008. The Effect of Ethical Orientation and Professional Commitment on Earnings Management Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 83, 419-434.
10. Halim, A. 2013. Pengaruh Kompetensi dan Independensi Auditor Terhadap Kualitas Audit dengan Anggaran Waktu Audit dan Komitmen Profesional Sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Disertasi. Universitas Brawijaya: Malang.
11. Hapsari, T. 2007. Pengaruh Kompetensi dan Independensi Terhadap Kualitas Audit dengan Etika Auditor Sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Tesis. Universitas Brawijaya: Malang.
12. Ikbal, M. 2008. Penerapan Sistem Pengendalian Mutu Pada Kantor Akuntan Publik Non-Afiliasi di Jakarta. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, Vol. 7(2),186-195.
13. Ismail, A. H., Sanusi, Z. M., Isa, Y. M., Kasim, S., Kamaruzaman, M., dan Mastuki, N. A. 2008. Implementation of Audit Quality Control System: Preliminary Evidence from Small and Medium Audit Practices in Malaysia. The 9th Asian Academic Accounting Association Annual Conference.
14. Jeffrey, C. Weatherholt, N. and Lo, S. 1996. Ethical Development, Professional Commitment and Rule Observance Attitudes: A Study of Auditors in Taiwan. The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 31(3), 365-379.
15. Komite Asistensi Dan Implementasi Standar Profesi Institut Akuntan Publik Indonesia. 2015. Pertanyaan dan Jawaban Penerapan SPM 1 Secara Proporsional Sesuai Karakteristik Operasi dan Besar Kecilnya Kantor Akuntan Publik.
16. Liliawati, 2006. Hubungan Antara Penerapan Sistem Pengendalian Mutu KAP dengan Efektivitas Perencanaan Audit. Retrieved from http://repository.widyatama.ac.id/
17. Lui, S. S., Ngo, H. Y., and Tsang, A. W. N. 2001. Interrole Conflict as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction and Propensity to Leave: A Study of Professional Accountants. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 (6), 469-484.
18. Maulidiani, E. dan Witjaksono, A. 2013. Pengaruh Penerapan Sistem Pengendalian Mutu dan Kompetensi Auditor Terhadap Kualitas Audit pada Kantor Akuntan Publik di DKI Jakarta. thesis.binus.ac.id/Doc/WorkingPaper/
19. Nasution, P. B. 2008. Pengaruh Sistem Pengendalian Mutu Kantor Akuntan Publik Terhadap Pekerjaan Lapangan Audit. Retrieved from http://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/
20. Pramana, R. 2014. Pengaruh Penerapan Sistem Pengendalian Mutu dan Time Budget Pressure Terhadap Kualitas Audit. Tesis. Universitas Widyatama: Bandung.
21. Putri, W. S. 2010. Pengaruh Atribut Kualitas Audit Terhadap Kepuasan Klien. Retrieved from http://eprints.undip.ac.id/22563/1.
22. Ramadhani, N. A. 2013. Pengaruh Sistem Pengendalian Mutu dan Kompetensi Auditor Terhadap Kualitas Audit. Retrieved from http://repository.widyatama.ac.id/
23. Renianawati, R. Gunawan, H. dan Purnamasari, P. 2016. Pengaruh Sistem Pengendalian Mutu dan Continuing Professional Development Terhadap Kualitas Audit. Prosiding Akuntansi, Vol. 2(2), ISSN: 2460-6561.
24. Rizka, K. M dan Amri, H. 2012. Penerapan Sistem Pengendalian Mutu pada Kantor Akuntan Publik Jamaludin, Aria, Sukimto & Rekan. Naskah Publikasi. Universitas Bina Nusantara: Jakarta.
25. Rosnidah, I. Rawi. dan Kamarudin. 2011. Analisis Dampak Motivasi dan Profesionalisme Terhadap Kualitas Audit Aparat Inspektorat dalam Pengawasan Keuangan Daerah. Pekbis Jurnal, Vol.3(2), 456-466.
26. Standar Audit (SA) 220 Pengendalian Mutu untuk Audit atas Laporan Keuangan.
27. Standar Profesional Akuntan Publik 2013.
28. Standar Pengendalian Mutu (SPM 1) Pengendalian Mutu bagi Kantor Akuntan Publik yang melaksanakan Perikatan Asurans (Audit, Reviu, dan Perikatan Asurans Lainnya) dan Perikatan Selain Asurans.
29. Standar Pengendalian Mutu Seksi 100 PSPM No. 01 Mengenai Sistem Pengendalian Mutu Kantor Akuntan Publik.
30. Susanto, H. dan Pratita, N. 2012. Perbandingan Penerapan Sistem Pengendalian Mutu Antara KAP ABC & Rekan Dengan KAP XYZ. UG Jurnal, Vol. 6(10).
31. Wardahani, V.K. 2014. Pengaruh Pengalaman Kerja, Independensi, Integritas, Obyektivitas, dan Kompetensi terhadap Kualitas Audit. Tesis. Universitas Brawijaya: Malang.
32. Wijayanto, I. A. 2014. Pengaruh Tekanan Anggaran Waktu, Kepatuhan Pada Kode Etik, dan Pengendalian Mutu Kantor Akuntan Publik (KAP) Terhadap Kualitas Audit. Naskah Publikasi. Universitas Muhammadiyah: Surakarta.
