57
Lampiran
Case Processing Summary
Unweighted Cases
a
N Percent
Selected Cases Included in Analysis
153 100.0
Missing Cases .0
Total 153
100.0 Unselected Cases
.0 Total
153 100.0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of cases.
Dependent Variable Encoding
Original Value Internal Value
TDK ADA ADA
1
Iteration History
a,b,c
Iteration -2 Log
likelihood Coefficients
Constant Step 0
1 188.809
.771 2
188.751 .813
3 188.751
.813 a. Constant is included in the model.
b. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 188.751 c. Estimation terminated at iteration number 3
because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
58
Classification Table
a,b
Observed Predicted
LKPD Percentage
Correct TDK ADA
ADA Step 0
LKPD TDK ADA
47 .0
ADA 106
100.0 Overall Percentage
69.3 a. Constant is included in the model.
b. The cut value is .500
Variables in the Equation
B S.E.
Wald df
Sig. ExpB
Step 0 Constant
.813 .175
21.538 1
.000 2.255
Variables not in the Equation
Score df
Sig.
Step 0 Variables
size 52.417
1 .000
kekayaan 20.199
1 .000
tipe_pemda 10.143
1 .001
opini_bpk 17.581
1 .000
Overall Statistics 60.555
4 .000
Universitas Sumatera Utara
59
Block 1: Method = Enter
Iteration History
a,b,c,d
Iteration -2 Log
likelihood Coefficients
Constant size
kekayaan tipe_pemda
opini_bpk
Step 1 1
126.363 -41.440
2.112 -.079
-.955 .289
2 106.442
-84.719 4.483
-.380 -.835
.337 3
99.192 -129.020
6.865 -.635
-.601 .301
4 98.074
-153.863 8.183
-.755 -.526
.289 5
98.039 -159.166
8.467 -.784
-.517 .291
6 98.039
-159.360 8.478
-.786 -.517
.291 7
98.039 -159.360
8.478 -.786
-.517 .291
a. Method: Enter b. Constant is included in the model.
c. Initial -2 Log Likelihood: 188.751 d. Estimation terminated at iteration number 7 because parameter estimates changed
by less than .001.
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-square df
Sig. Step 1
Step 90.712
4 .000
Block 90.712
4 .000
Model 90.712
4 .000
Model Summary
Step -2 Log
likelihood Cox Snell R
Square Nagelkerke R
Square 1
98.039
a
.447 .631
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 3.497
8 .899
Universitas Sumatera Utara
60
Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
LKPD = TDK ADA LKPD = ADA
Total Observed
Expected Observed
Expected
Step 1 1
15 14.365
.635 15
2 10
11.654 5
3.346 15
3 8
8.555 7
6.445 15
4 8
5.951 7
9.049 15
5 3
3.416 12
11.584 15
6 2
1.767 13
13.233 15
7 1
.887 14
14.113 15
8 .307
15 14.693
15 9
.088 15
14.912 15
10 .009
18 17.991
18
Classification Table
a
Observed Predicted
LKPD Percentage
Correct TDK ADA
ADA Step 1
LKPD TDK ADA
33 14
70.2 ADA
11 95
89.6 Overall Percentage
83.7 a. The cut value is .500
Universitas Sumatera Utara
61
Variables in the Equation
B S.E.
Wald df
Sig. ExpB
95 C.I.for EXPB
Lower Upper
Step 1
a
size 8.478
1.801 22.167
1 .000
4806.740 140.968 163900 kekayaan
-.786 .671
1.372 1
.241 .456
.122 1.697
tipe_pemda -.517
.697 .551
1 .458
.596 .152
2.335 opini_bpk
.291 .671
.188 1
.664 1.338
.359 4.990
Constant -159.360
31.548 25.515
1 .000
.000 a. Variables entered on step 1: size, kekayaan, tipe_pemda, opini_bpk.
Correlation Matrix
Constant size
kekayaan tipe_pemda
opini_bpk
Step 1 Constant
1.000 -.954
.306 -.212
.133 size
-.954 1.000
-.578 .332
.049 kekayaan
.306 -.578
1.000 -.484
-.529 tipe_pemda
-.212 .332
-.484 1.000
.154 opini_bpk
.133 .049
-.529 .154
1.000
Universitas Sumatera Utara
55
Daftar Pustaka
Adhariani Sarah, Rini, 2014. Opini Audit Dan Pengungkapan Atas Laporan Keuangan Pemerintah Kabupaten Serta Kaitannya Dengan Korupsi Di
Indonesia. Jurnal Etikonomi, Vol 13 No.1. Christaens, J. 1999. Financial Accounting Reform in Flemish Municipalities: An
Empirical Investigation. Financial Accountability Management, 15 1, 21-40.
Daerah dan Belanja Modal sebagai Prediktor Kelemahan Pengendalian Intern. Ghozali, Imam. 2011. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS
Cetakan IV. Semarang; Badan Penerbitan Universitas Diponegoro. Gujarati, Damodar, 2003, Basic Econometrics, McGrawhill, New York.
Hartati, Y. 2011. Analisis Pengungkapan Laporan Keuangan Opini Wajar Tanpa Pengecualian Study Padang Pariaman Kota Pariaman. Jurnal Universitas
Andalas. Hermana, B., Tarigan, A., Medyawati, and H., Silfianti, W. 2012. Information
Richness, Website Feature, and Financial Transparancy on the Local Government Website in Indonesia. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology, Vol 43 No.2: 229-235.
Jurnal Akuntansi UKRIDA, Volume 9, No.1. Kristanto, Septian Bayu 2009. Pengaruh Ukuran Pemerintah Daerah,
Pendapatan Asli. Kusumawardani, Fitria. 2012.Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Audit Delay
pada Perusahaan Manufaktur. ISSN 2252-6765. Laswad, F, R. Fisher, P. Oyelere. 2005. “Determinents of Voluntary Internet
Financial Reporting by Local Government Authorities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy , 24: 101-121.
Margono, Drs. S. Margono 2004 Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Nirmala, Rr Putri Arsika dan N. Cahyonowati. 2013. Pengaruh Independensi,Pengalaman, Due Professional Care, Akutabilitas,
Kompleksitas Audit,Dan ime Bedget Pressure Terhadap Kualitas Audit Studi Empiris PadaAuditor Kap Di Jawa Tengah Dan DIY. Diponegoro Jounal
OfAccounting. Vol 2, No. 3, Hal : 1-13.
PP Nomor 24 Tahun 2004 Tentang Standar Akuntansi Pemerintahan SAP. Prasidhanto, Wiratmoko. 2012. Studi Biaya Tenaga Kerja Badan Usaha Milik
Negara BUMN: Kontribusi Pegawai dan Eksekutif Terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan. Jurnal Kementrian Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Jakarta:
Kementrian Badan Usaha Milik Negara.
SA 508 paragraf 20 IAI, 2002:508.11.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
56
SAP Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 71 Tahun 2010. Standar Profesional Akuntan PSA 29.
Serrano-Cinca, Carlos, Mar Rueda-Tomas, Pilar Portillo-Tarragona. 2008. Factors Influencing E-disclosure in Local Public Administrations. Working
Paper No.2008-03, Faculted de Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Zaragoza.
Styles, Alan K., Mack Tennyson. 2007. The Accessibility of Financial Reporting U.S. Municipalities on The Internet. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting
Financial Management, 19 1, 56-92. Sugiyono. 2013. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif,
Kualitatif, dan RD. Bandung: Alfabeta. Suhardjanto, Djoko., Yulianingtyas, Rena Rukmita. 2011. ‘PengaruhKarakteristik
Pemerintah Daerah terhadap KepatuhanPengungkapan Wajib dalam Laporan Keuangan PemerintahDaerah Studi Empiris pada KabupatenKota di
Indonesia. JurnalAkuntansi Auditing. Volume 8No.1November 20011: 1- 194.
Sumarjo, Hendro. 2010. Pengaruh Karakteristik Pemerintah Daerah Terhadap Kinerja Keuangan Pemerintah Daerah Studi Empiris Pada Pemerintah
Daerah KabupatenKota Di Indonesia. Skripsi Sarjana. Universitas Sebelas Maret. Surakarta.
Tobing, Elwin. 2004. Pendidikan Pasar Tenaga Kerja dan Kewiraswastaan. Jakarta.
Trisnawati, Komarudin. 2014. Determinan Publikasi Laporan Keuangan Pemerintah Daerah Melalui Internet. Jurnal Universitas Brawijaya.
Undang-Undang Nomor 33 Tahun 2004 tentang Perimbangan Keuangan antara Pemerintah Pusat dan Pemerintah Daerah.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 14 Tahun 2008tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik.
Wau, Ikhlas, 2015.Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruh Ketersediaan Dan Keteraksesan Internet Financia Reporting Oleh Pemerintah Daerah. Skripsi
Sarjana. Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
35
BAB III METODE PENELITIAN
3.1 Variabel Penelitian dan Definisi Operasional Variabel 3.1.1 Variabel Penelitian
