Hubungan Antara Judgment Audit dengan Resiko dan Materialitas

Eko Madyo Sutanto

Abstract


Laporan audit auditor harus mempertimbangkan masalah materialitas, risiko dan penilaian. Pertimbangan Materialitas termasuk kualitatif dan kuantitatif pertimbangan. Pertimbangan kuantitatif berhubungan dengan kesalahan yang menjadi penentu dalam laporan keuangan. Sementara faktor kualitatif berhubungan dengan penyebab kesalahan tersebut. Untuk menghindari atau meminimalkan risiko audit, menurut Standar Audit seksi 312 menekankan Risiko audit dan Materialitas dalam Pelaksanaan audit, maka auditor harus mempertimbangkan dua hal dalam merencanakan audit dan penilaian terhadap ekuitas laporan keuangan secara keseluruhan sesuai dengan prinsip akuntansi berterima umum di Indonesia

The audit report of auditor should consider the issue of materiality, risk and valuation. Consideration of Materiality including qualitative and quantitative considerations. Quantitative considerations associated with the error that is needed in the financial statements. While qualitative factors associated with the cause of the error. To avoid or minimize the risk of an audit , according to section 312 Auditing Standards emphasize Audit Risk and Materiality in audit, the auditor should consider two things in planning the audit and assessment of the overall equity of financial statements in accordance with generally acceptable accounting principles in Indonesia


Keywords


Audit Judgment, Audit Risk, Materiality

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arens dan Loebbecke, Edisi Indonesia, Adaptasi Amir Abadi J., Edisi 1995, Auditing, Salemba Empat, 1996.

Arifuddin, Faridah, Yusni Wahyuni, 2002. Hubungan antara Judgment Audit dengan Resiko dan Materialitas. Jurnal Bisnis dan Akuntansi, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 103 - 117.

Asthon, Allison Hubbard, (1991), Experience and Error Frequency Knowledge as Potential Determinants of Audit Expertise, The Accounting Review, Vol. 66 (April) : 218 239.

Bonner, Sarah E, and B. Lewis (1990), Determinants of Audit Expertise, Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement) : 1-20.

Chung, Janne and Monroe, Gary S. 2000. The Effects of Experience and Task Difficulit on Accuracy and Confidence Assessments of Auditor. Accounting and Finance 40. Pp 135-152.

Gibbins, M., (1984), Propositions About The Psychology of Profesional Judgment in Public Accounting, Journal of Accounting Research : 103 125.

Johnson, Van E. and Kaplan, Steven E. 1991. Experimental Evidence on the efisien of Accountibility on Auditor Judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol.10. Supplement. Pp.96-107.

Krisnamoorthy, Ganesh, Mock, Theodore J. Mock and Washington, Mary T. 1999. A Comparative Evaluation of Belief Revision Model in Auditing. Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 96 107.

Libby, R., and J. Luft, and H. Tan. (1994), Modelling The Determinant of Audit Expertise, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18 : 425 450.

Mulyadi, 2002, Auditing, Edisi keenam, Buku 1, Salemba Empat, Jakarta.

Peecher, Mark E. and Kleinmuntz, Don N. 1991. Discussion of Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Accountability on Auditor Judgment. Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol. 10. Supplement. Pp. 10 113.

Standart Profesional Akuntan Publik, 2002, Standart Auditing, Seksi 312, Salemba Empat, Jakarta.

Taylor, Geoffrey. 1985. Audit Judgment : Risk and Materiality Current Issues in Auditing, Harper & Row Publishers, London.

Tubbs, Richard M., (1992), The Effect of Experience on The Auditors Organizations and Amount of Knowledge, The Accounting Review, Vol. 67 (October) No. 4 : 783 801.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jda.v6i2.3253

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License