Lampiran 11
REGRESI LOGISTIK
Correlation Matrix
Constant X1
X2 X3
X4 X5
X6 X7
Step 1 Constant 1.000
-.172 -.529
-.073 -.169
-.420 .200
-.116 X1
-.172 1.000
-.088 -.166
.130 -.329
.078 -.029
X2 -.529
-.088 1.000
.154 -.263
.212 -.322
.089 X3
-.073 -.166
.154 1.000
-.172 .284
-.669 .008
X4 -.169
.130 -.263
-.172 1.000
-.440 .107
-.014 X5
-.420 -.329
.212 .284
-.440 1.000
-.155 .048
X6 .200
.078 -.322
-.669 .107
-.155 1.000
-.045 X7
-.116 -.029
.089 .008
-.014 .048
-.045 1.000
Iteration History
a,b,c
Iteration -2 Log likelihood
Coefficients Constant
Step 0 1
85.344 -.606
2 85.338
-.626 3
85.338 -.626
a. Constant is included in the model. b. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 85.338
c. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because parameter estimates changed by less than
.001.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Iteration History
a,b,c,d
Iteratio n
-2 Log likelihoo
d Coefficients
Consta nt
REPUTASI PERUSAHA
AN AUDITOR
RASIO OPMT
A RASIO
LANCA R
RATA- RATA
UMUR PIUTAN
G PROFI
T MARGI
N PERTUMBUH
AN PERUSAHAA
N AUDITEE BIAY
A AUDI
T Ste
p 1 1
64.883 -.670
-.206 .001
-.062 2.678
-.476 -.011
- 3.721
2 60.400
-.588 -.243
.001 -.096
3.380 -.563
-.018 -
7.977 3
58.794 -.559
-.179 .001
-.129 3.986
-.690 -.022
- 12.31
5 4
58.556 -.563
-.137 .001
-.150 4.366
-.762 -.023
- 14.73
2 5
58.549 -.562
-.131 .001
-.154 4.429
-.770 -.023
- 15.21
3 6
58.549 -.561
-.131 .001
-.154 4.430
-.770 -.023
- 15.22
8 7
58.549 -.561
-.131 .001
-.154 4.430
-.770 -.023
- 15.22
8 a. Method: Enter
b. Constant is included in the model. c. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 85.338
d. Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
Model Summary
Step -2 Log likelihood
Cox Snell R Square
Nagelkerke R Square
1 58.549
a
.334 .460
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step Chi-square
df Sig.
1 8.056
7 .328
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-square df
Sig. Step 1
Step 26.789
7 .000
Block 26.789
7 .000
Model 26.789
7 .000
Variables in the Equation
B S.E.
Wald df
Sig. ExpB
Step 1
a
X1 -15.228
6.519 5.457
1 .019
.000 X2
-.131 .705
.034 1
.853 .877
X3 .001
.001 1.070
1 .301
1.001 X4
-.154 .222
.483 1
.487 .857
X5 4.430
1.830 5.860
1 .015
83.914 X6
-.770 .999
.594 1
.441 .463
X7 -.023
.053 .184
1 .668
.977 Constant
-.561 .633
.786 1
.375 .570
a. Variables entered on step 1: X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7
Classification Table
a
Observed Predicted
opini audit qualified Percentage
Correct Opini Audit
Non Qualified Opini Audit
Qualified Step 1 opini audit qualified Opini Audit Non
Qualified 41
2 95.3
Opini Audit Qualified 10
13 56.5
Overall Percentage 81.8
a. The cut value is .500
Universitas Sumatera Utara
77
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Arens, Alvin dan Loebbecke, James 1996. Auditing Pendekatan Terpadu. Edisi Indonesia. Jakarta: Salemba Empat
Arma, Endra Ukri. 2013. “ Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Likuiditas, dan Pertumbuhan Perusahaan Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern Studi
Empiris Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Pada Bursa Efek Indonesia
”. Jurnal Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang. Bartov, E., Gul, F.A. and Tsui, J.S.L. 2001.
“Discretionary-accruals models and audit qualifications”, Journal of Accounting and Economics”. Volume 30,
hal 421-552.
Caramanis, Constantino us. 2006. “Auditee and Audit Firm Characteristics as
Determinants of Audit Qualifications .” Manajerial Auditing Journal,
Volume 76, No. 9, hal 905-920. Craswell, A., Stokes, D.J. and Laughton, J. 2002.
“Auditor independence and fee dependence
”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Volume 33, hal 253- 75.
DeAngelo, L. 1981. “Auditor size and auditor quality”, Journal of Accounting and Economics
, Volume 1, hal. 113-127. Dopouch, N., Holthausen, R. and Leftwich, R. 1987. “Predicting audit
qualifications with financial and market variables ”, The Accounting Review,
Volume 62 No. 3, hal 431-54. Elitzur, Ramy dan Falk, Haim. 1996. “Planned Audit Quality.” Journal of
Accounting Public Policy , Volume 15, hal 247-269.
Erlina. 2011. Metodologi Penelitian. Usu Press. Medan. Ghozali, Imam, 2013. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program SPSS.
Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang. -------------------, .2011.Analisis Multivariate Lanjutan Dengan Program SPSS.
Semarang : Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
-------------------, 2006. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponogoro.
Halim, Abdul. 2008. Auditing Dasar-Dasar Audit Laporan Keuangan Jilid 1 Edisi Keempat
. UPP STIM YKPN.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Hanafi, Mamduh dan Halim, Abdul. 2005. Analisis Laporan Keuangan. Yogyakarta: UPP AMD YKPN.
Haryanto, Kurniawan Dwi . 2011. “Karakteristik Auditee Dan Perusahaan Audit Sebagai Penentu Opini Audit Qualified
”. Skripsi. Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
Healy, P.M. and Palepu, K.G. 2001. “Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure
literature ”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Volume. 31, hal 405-
440. Houghton, K.A. and Jubb, C.A. 1999.
“The cost of audit qualifications: the role of non-audit services
”, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation
, Volume 8 No. 2,hal 215-240. IAPI. 2011. Standar Profesional Akuntan Publik. Jakarta : Salemba Empat.
Karanikas, E., Leledakis, G. and Tzavalis, E. 2006. “Structural changes in expected stock returns relationships: evidence from ASE
”, Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, in press
. Keasey, K. and Watson, R. 1987. “Non-financial symptoms and the prediction of
small company failure: a test of Argenti’s hypothesis”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting
, Volume 14 No. 3, hal. 335-354. Kida, T. 1980.
“An investigation into auditor’s continuity and related qualification judgments
”, Journal of Accounting Research, hal 506-523, Autumn.
Krishnan, J. and Krishnan, J. 1996 , “The role of economic trade-offs in the audit
opinion decision: an empirical analysis ”, Journal of Accounting Auditing
and Finance , Volume 11 No. 4, hal 565-586.
Laitinen, E.K. and Laitinen, T. 1998. “Qualified audit reports in Finland:
evidence from large companies ”, The European Accounting Review,
Volume 7 No. 4, hal 639-653. Maya, Sartika. 2015. “ Pengaruh Audit Tenure, Audit Switching, Audit Capacity
Stress, Ukuran Perusahaan, dan Independensi Komite Audit Terhadap Kualitas Audit Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan Perbankan Yang Terdaftar
di BEI Tahun 2009- 2013”. Skripsi. Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Mulyadi. 2002. Auditing. Yogyakarta:Salemba Empat. Mutchler, J., Hopwood, W. and McKeown, J. 1997.
“The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt
companies ”, Journal of Accounting Research, Volume 35, hal 295-310.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Pandiangan, Demak Sri Rahel. 2013. “Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya, Leverage, dan Pertumbuhan Perusahaan Terhadap
Opini Audit Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Di BEI
”. Skripsi. Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan. Spathis, Charalambos. 2003. “Audit Qualification, Firm Litigation, and Financial
Information: An Empirical Analysis in Greece ”. International Journal of
Auditing. Volume 7 No. 1, hal 71-85 .
Standar Profesional Akuntan Publik SPAP. 2011. PSA No. 01 SA Seksi 230. Institut Akuntan Publik Indonesia. Jakarta.
Sugiyono, 2011. Statistika untuk Penelitian, Alfabeta, Bandung. Tamba, Revol Ulung Bisara. 2009. “ Pengaruh Debt Default, Kualitas Audit, Dan
Opini Audit Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Skripsi. Universitas
Sumatera Utara, Medan.
Warren, Carl S, James M Reeve dan Philip E fees. 2006. Pengantar Akuntansi Judul Asli:Accounting, Buku Satu, Edisi 21. Penerjemah Aria Farahmita,
Amanugrah, Taufik Hendrawan. Salemba Empat. www.wikipedia.com
www.idx.co.id
.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
37
BAB III METODE PENELITIAN
3.1. Jenis Penelitian
