Dysfunctional Audit Behavior (Studi Empiris pada Kantor Akuntan Publik di Jaw

Daftar Pustaka

  Alderman C. Wayne dan James W. Deitrick. Auditor’ Perceptions of Time Budget Pressures and Premature Sign-Offs: A Replication and Extension. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &Theory, Vol 1, No 2.

  Araminta, Rahma Safrida dan Drs. Dul Muld, Msi, Akt. 2011. Emothional

Spiritual Quotent dan Locus of Control sebgai Antiseden Hubungan Kinerja

Pegawai dan Pemerimaan Perilaku Dysfungsional Audit (Studi pada Inspektorat

Provinsi Jawa Tengah).

  Arens, Alvin A. , Randal J. Elder, Mark S. Beasley, 2008, “Auditing dan Jasa Assurance, Edisi Keduabelas”. Jakarta : Erlangga. Baskara, Agusta Eka dan Ardiani Ika S. 2011. Penerimaan Auditor Atas

Dysfunctional Audit Behavior (Studi Empiris pada Kantor Akuntan Publik di Jaw Tengah). Jurnal MAKSI, Vol 11, No 1: hal 1-17

  Basuki dan Krisna Yunika Mahardani. 2006. Pengaruh Tekanan Anggaran

Waktu terhadap Perilaku Disfungsional Auditor dan Kualitas Audit pada Kantor

Akuntan Publik di Surabaya. Jurnal MAKSI, Vo l6, No 2: hal 203-223.

  Cooper, Donald R dan Pamela S. Schindler, 2006, Metode Riset Bisnis. Jakarta: PT Media Global Edukasi.

  Dimejo, Sastro, 2008, “Locus of Control”, di-download dari Donnely, D. D., J. F. Quirin, David O Bryan. 2003. Attitudes Toward

Dysfungctional Audit Behavior: The Effect of Locus of Control, Organization Commitment and Position. The journal of Applied Business Research

  Gozali, Imam. 2009. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS . Edisi ke-2. Semarang : Universitas Diponegoro. Hery, Fransiskus. 2011. “Pengaruh Locus of Control Eksternal, Kinerja,

Intensi Turnover Intention, dan Komitmen Organisasional Terhadap Perilaku

  

Disfungsional Auditor”. Skripsi Fakultas Ekonomi UNIKA Soegijapranata.

Semarang. (tidak dipublikasikan).

  Febrina, Husna Lina, 2012. “Analisis Pengaruh Karakteristik Personal

Auditor Terhadap Penerimaan Auditor Atas Dysfunctional Audit Behavior“.

Skripsi Fakultas Ekonomi Diponegoro. Semarang. (tidak dipublikasikan).

  Irawati, Yuke dan Thio Anastasia Petrolinila Mukhlasin. 2005. Hubungan

Karakteristik Personal Auditor terhadap Tingkat Penerimaan Penyimpangan

Perilaku dalam Audit. SNA VII, hal 929-940.

  Inapty, Biana Adha, 2007, “Pengaruh Konflik Biaya dengan Kualitas

Audit terhadap Dysfunctional Behavior (Studi Empiris pada Kantor Akuntan

Publik di Indonesia:”, Thesis (tidak dipublikasikan), Program Pascasarjana

Universitas Diponegoro.

  Indarto, Stefani Lily, 2011, “Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi

Penghentian Prematur Atas Prosedur Audit”, Dinamika Sosial Ekonomi, Vol. 7,

No. 2.

  Institut Akuntan Publik Indonesia (IAPI), 2011, “Standar Profesional Akuntan Publik”. Jakarta : Salemba Empat. Jogiyanto, H. M., Metodelogi Penelitian Bisnis: Salah Kaprah dan Pengalaman-Pengalaman , Yogyakarta: BPFE-Yogyakarta. Kartika, M.SI, AKT, Dra. Indri dan Provita Wijayanti, SE. 2007. Locus of

  

Control sebagai Antiseden Hubungan Kinerja Pegawai dan Penerimaan Perilaku

Disfungsional Audit. Simposium Nasional Akutansi X, Unhas Makassar, AUEP

05: hal: 1-20.

  Marfuah, Siti. 2012. “Pengaruh Tekanan Anggaran Waktu Terhadap

Perilaku Disfungsional Auditor dalam Perspektif Teori Stress Kerja. Skripsi

Fakultas Ekonomi Diponegoro. Semarang. (tidak dipublikasikan).

  Margheim, Loren dan Tim Kelley. 1990. The Impact of Time Budget

Pressure, Personality, and Leadership Variables on Dysfunctional Auditor

Behavior. Auditing: A journal of Practice & Theory Vol 9, No 2: hal 21-42.

  Maryanti, Puji. 2005. Analisis Penerimaan Auditor Atas Dysfunctional

Audit Behavior : Pendekatan Karakter Personal Auditor (Studi Empiris pada

Kantor Akuntan Publik di Jawa). Jurnal MAKSI, Vol 5, No 2: hal. 213-226.

  

McDaniel, Linda S. 1990. The Effects of Time Pressure and Audit Program

Structure on Audit Performance. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol 28, No 2.

  Otley, D.T. and B.J Pierce . 1996. The Operation of Control Systems in Large Audit Firm. Auditing: A journal of Practice & Theory Vol 15, No 2: hal 65- 84.

  Paino, Halil, Azlan Thani dan Syed Iskandar Zulkarnain. 2011.

Dysfunctional Audit Behaviour: The Effect of Budget Emphasis Leadership Behaviour, and Effectiveness of Audit Review. European Jurnal of Social

  Sciences- Volume 21, Number 3: hal. 436-447.

  Pujaningrum, Intan. 2012. Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi

Tingkat Penerimaan Auditor atas Penyimpangan Perilaku dalam Audit (Studi

Empiris pada Kantor Akuntan Publik di Semarang. Diponegoro Journal of

Accounting , Vol 1, No1: hal 1-15.

  Silaban, Adanan. 2009. “Perilaku Disfungsional Auditor Dalam

Pelaksanaan Program Audit (Studi Empiris di Kantor Akuntan Publik”, Disertasi,

Program Doktor Ilmu Ekonomi Univrsitas Diponegoro.

  Simanjuntak, Piter. 2008. “Pengaruh Time Budget Pressure dan Resiko

Kesalahan Terhadap Penurunan Kualitas Audit (Reduced Audit Quality) (Studi

Empiris pada Auditor KAP di Jakarta)”, Thesis, Program Pascasarjana Universitas

Dipponegoro.

  Sitagang. 2007. Faktot yang Mempengaruhi Periaku Disfungsional pada Auditor. Thesis, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Dipponegoro. Sososutikno, Christina. 2010. Perilaku Disfungsional Akibat Tekanan

Anggaran Waktu (Studi Empiris di Lingkungan Badan Pengawasan Daerah

  Tingkat I dan Tingkat II Propinsi Maluku). Jurnal MAKSI, Vol 10, No 1: hal. 89- 96.

  Spector, Paul E dan Philip L. Strorms. 1987. Relationships of

organizational frustration with reported behavioural reactions: The moderating

effect of locus of control. Printed in Great Britain: 227-234.

  Suhayati, Ely. 2012. The Influence of Audit Fee. Audit Time Budget

Pressure and Public Accountant Attitude on the Public Accountant Dysfunctional

Behavior and It’s Implicated on Audit Quality Survey on “Small” Scale Public

Accounting Firms’s in Java. The Journal of Global Management.

  Sujana, Edi dan Tjiptohadi Sawarjuwono. 2006. Perilaku Disfungsional

  Suprianto, Edy. 2009. Pengaruh Time Budget Presuure terhadap Perilaku Disfungsional Auditor. JAI, Vol 5, No 1:hal 1-14. Wahyudin, Agus, Indah Anisykurlillah dan Dwi Harini. 2011. Analisis

Dysfunctiona Audit Behavior : Sebuah Pendekatan Karakteristik Personal Auditor.

Jurnal Dinamika Akutansi, Vol 3, No 2: pp 67-76.

  Wilopo. 2006. Faktor-Faktor yang Berpengaruh terhadap Perilaku

Disfungsional Auditor: Studi pada Kantor Akuntan Publik di Jawa Timur.

Akuntansi dan Teknologi Informasi. Vol 5, No 2: hal: 141-152

  

Frequencies Statistics

  JenisKelamin N Valid

Frequencies Statistics

  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

  34 Missing

  Jabatan N Valid

  S1 27 79,4 79,4 91,2 S2 3 8,8 8,8 100,0 Total 34 100,0 100,0

  Percent Valid D3 4 11,8 11,8 11,8

  Pendidikan

  34 Missing

  34 Missing

  Pendidikan N Valid

  Wanita 13 38,2 38,2 100,0 Total 34 100,0 100,0

  Percent Valid Pria 21 61,8 61,8 61,8

  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

  Jenis Kelamin

Frequencies Statistics

  Jabatan

  Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

  Valid Junior 26 76,5 76,5 76,5 Senior 8 23,5 23,5 100,0 Total 34 100,0 100,0

Descriptives Descriptive Statistics

  N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Lama Bekerja 34 6,00 72,00 30,0000 20,94582 Valid N (listwise)

  Case Processing Summary

  Cases Valid Missing Total

  N Percent N Percent N Percent Jenis Kelamin 34 100,0% ,0%

  34 100,0%

• Pendidikan

  JenisKelamin * Pendidikan Crosstabulation

  Pendidikan D3 S1 S2 Total

  Jenis Kelamin 1,00 Count

  3

  15

  3

  21 Expected Count 2,5 16,7 1,9 21,0 % within Jenis Kelamin

  14,3% 71,4% 14,3% 100,0% % within Pendidikan

  75,0% 55,6% 100,0% 61,8% % of Total 8,8% 44,1% 8,8% 61,8%

  2,00 Count

  1

  12

  13 Expected Count 1,5 10,3 1,1 13,0

  % within Jenis Kelamin 7,7% 92,3% ,0% 100,0% % within Pendidikan

  25,0% 44,4% ,0% 38,2% % of Total

  2,9% 35,3% ,0% 38,2% Total Count

  4

  27

  3

  34 Expected Count 4,0 27,0 3,0 34,0

  % within Jenis Kelamin 11,8% 79,4% 8,8% 100,0%

  % within Pendidikan 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total

  11,8% 79,4% 8,8% 100,0%

  Case Processing Summary

  Cases Valid Missing Total

  N Percent N Percent N Percent Jenis Kelamin * Jabatan 34 100,0% ,0%

  34 100,0%

  JenisKelamin * Jabatan Crosstabulation

  Jabatan Junior Senior Total

  Jenis Kelamin 1,00 Count

  14

  7

  21 Expected Count 16,1 4,9 21,0

  % within JenisKelamin 66,7% 33,3% 100,0%

  % within Jabatan 53,8% 87,5% 61,8% % of Total

  41,2% 20,6% 61,8% 2,00 Count

  12

  1

  13 Expected Count 9,9 3,1 13,0 % within JenisKelamin

  92,3% 7,7% 100,0% % within Jabatan

  46,2% 12,5% 38,2% % of Total 35,3% 2,9% 38,2%

  Total Count

  26

  8

  34 Expected Count 26,0 8,0 34,0

  % within JenisKelamin 76,5% 23,5% 100,0% % within Jabatan

  100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total

  76,5% 23,5% 100,0%

Crosstabs

  

Case Processing Summary

  Cases Valid Missing Total

  N Percent N Percent N Percent Pendidikan * Jabatan 34 100,0% ,0%

  34 100,0%

  Pendidikan * Jabatan Crosstabulation

  Jabatan Junior Senior Total

  Pendidikan D3 Count

  4

  4 Expected Count 3,1 ,9 4,0

  % within Pendidikan 100,0% ,0% 100,0% % within Jabatan

  15,4% ,0% 11,8% % of Total

  11,8% ,0% 11,8% S1 Count

  20

  7

  27 Expected Count 20,6 6,4 27,0 % within Pendidikan

  74,1% 25,9% 100,0% % within Jabatan

  76,9% 87,5% 79,4% % of Total 58,8% 20,6% 79,4%

  S2 Count

  2

  1

  3 Expected Count 2,3 ,7 3,0 % within Pendidikan

  66,7% 33,3% 100,0% % within Jabatan

  7,7% 12,5% 8,8% % of Total 5,9% 2,9% 8,8%

  Total Count

  26

  8

  34 Expected Count 26,0 8,0 34,0

  % within Pendidikan 76,5% 23,5% 100,0%

  % within Jabatan 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total

  76,5% 23,5% 100,0%

Reliability Case Processing Summary

  N % Cases Valid 34 50,0

  Excluded(a) 34 50,0 Total 68 100,0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

  Reliability Statistics

  Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

  ,972

  8

  Scale Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item

  Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted LOC1

  19,5000 39,348 ,717 ,976 LOC2

  19,9118 36,689 ,972 ,963 LOC3

  19,9412 37,330 ,933 ,966 LOC4

  19,7941 38,290 ,867 ,969 LOC5

  20,1176 35,137 ,852 ,972 LOC6

  19,9412 36,360 ,954 ,964 LOC7

  20,0588 37,209 ,871 ,969 LOC8

  19,8824 35,683 ,972 ,963

Reliability Case Processing Summary

  N % Cases Valid 34 25,0

  Excluded(a) 102 75,0 Total 136 100,0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

  Reliability Statistics

  Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

  ,966

  6 Item-Total Statistics Scale Corrected Cronbach's

  Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

  K1 17,4412 11,587 ,868 ,962

  K2 17,3235 10,953 ,894 ,959

  K3 17,4118 11,401 ,914 ,957

  K4 17,3824 10,910 ,901 ,958

  K5 17,4118 11,037 ,871 ,961

  K6 17,4412 10,921 ,902 ,958

  Case Processing Summary

  TAW1 10,2941 5,547 ,680 ,968

  6

  ,952

  Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

  Reliability Statistics

  Excluded(a) 170 83,3 Total 204 100,0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

  N % Cases Valid 34 16,7

  TAW4 10,4412 5,163 ,858 ,909

  TAW3 10,3824 5,092 ,936 ,885

  TAW2 10,4412 4,981 ,923 ,888

  Alpha if Item Deleted

  N % Cases Valid 34 20,0

  Correlation Cronbach's

  Corrected Item-Total

  Variance if Item Deleted

  Item Deleted Scale

  4 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if

  ,934

  Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

  Reliability Statistics

  Excluded(a) 136 80,0 Total 170 100,0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Case Processing Summary

  Scale Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item

  Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted TI1

  16,1471 14,735 ,760 ,952 TI2

  15,8235 15,725 ,788 ,952 TI3

  16,2059 13,017 ,946 ,931 TI4

  16,1176 13,077 ,918 ,934 TI5

  15,9118 13,598 ,857 ,942 TI6

  15,8235 13,422 ,869 ,940

Reliability Case Processing Summary

  N % Cases Valid 34 14,3

  Excluded(a) 204 85,7 Total 238 100,0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

  Reliability Statistics

  Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

  ,955

  10 Item-Total Statistics Scale Corrected Cronbach's

  Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

  PD1 31,3824 29,758 ,844 ,948

  PD2 31,2941 30,638 ,894 ,946

  PD3 31,2353 30,731 ,865 ,947

  PD4 31,1765 30,756 ,910 ,945

  PD5 31,1471 31,099 ,859 ,948

  PD6 30,8824 32,895 ,569 ,959

  PD7 31,2059 31,199 ,852 ,948

  PD8 31,1176 30,895 ,830 ,949

  PD9 31,1176 30,895 ,782 ,951

  PD10 31,0000 33,455 ,651 ,956

  N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation LOC 34 11,00 34,00 22,7353 6,93829 K 34 12,00 27,00 20,8824 3,99063 TAW 34 7,00 17,00 13,8529 3,00638 TI 34 14,00 26,00 19,2059 4,45706 PD 34 20,00 42,00 34,6176 6,19391 Valid N (listwise)

  One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

  Unstandardize d Residual N

  34 Mean ,0000000

  Normal Parameters(a,b) Std. Deviation

  3,26356030 Most Extreme Absolute

  ,074 Differences

  Positive ,057

  Negative

• ,074 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z ,433

  Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,992 a Test distribution is Normal. b Calculated from data.

Regression Heteroskedastisitas Uji Glejzer Variables Entered/Removed(b)

  Variables Model Variables Entered Removed Method

  1 TI, LOC, TAW, K(a) . Enter a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: ABS

  Adjusted R Std. Error of Model R R Square Square the Estimate

  1 ,258(a) ,067 -,062 1,99108 a Predictors: (Constant), TI, LOC, TAW, K b Dependent Variable: ABS

  b ANOV A

  Sum of Model Squares df Mean S quare F Sig.

  a

  1 Regres sion 8,224 4 2,056 ,519 ,723

  Residual 114,968 29 3,964

  Total 123,192

  33

  a. Predic tors: (Constant), TI, LOC, TAW , K b.

  Dependent Variable: AB S

  a

Coefficients

  Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients

  Model Sig. t

  B Std. Error Beta Locus of Control Eksternal

• ,046 ,054 -,166 -,858 ,398 Kinerja ,028 ,104 ,057 ,266 ,792 Tekanan Anggaran Waktu -,039 ,134 -,061 -,293 ,772

  Turnover Intention

• ,044 ,091 -,101 -,480 ,635 a.

  Dependent Variable: ABS_RES

  b. Linear Regression through the Origin

Regression Hipotesis Variables Entered/Removed(b)

  Variables Model Variables Entered Removed Method

  1 TI, LOC, TAW, K(a) . Enter a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: PD

  Uji Determinasi (Ajusted R Square)

  Adjusted R Std. Error of Model R R Square Square the Estimate

  1 ,850(a) ,722 ,684 3,48137 a Predictors: (Constant), TurI, LOC, TAW, K b Dependent Variable: PD

Uji Fit Model b ANOVA

  Sum of Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

  a

  1 Regression 914,552 4 228,638 18,865 ,000 Residual

  351,477 29 12,120 Total

  1266,029

  33 a. Predictors: (Constant), Locus of Control, Kinerja, Tekanan Anggaran Waktu, Turnover Intention

  b. Dependent Variable: Perilaku Disfungsional

Multikolinearitas a Coefficients

  Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficiens Collinearity Statistics

  Model B Beta t Tolerance

  VIF Std. Error Sig. 1 (Constant) 16,988 6,408 2,651 ,000

  Locus of Control Eksternal

  ,306 ,094 ,342 3,250 ,003 ,864 1,158 Kinerja

• ,383 ,181 -,247 -2,113 ,043 ,702 1,425 Tekanan Anggaran Waktu ,879 ,235 ,427 3,743 ,001 ,737 1,356

  Turnover Intention

  ,339 ,160 ,244 2,124 ,042 ,726 1,378

  a. Dependent Variable: Perilaku Disfungsional

  Uji Hipotesis

  

Coefficients

a

  16,988 6,408 2,651 ,000 ,306 ,094 ,342 3,250 ,003 ,0015

  Diterima

  Locus of Control Eksternal

  Kinerja Tekanan Anggaran Waktu

• ,383 ,181 -,247 -2,113 ,043 ,0215 Diterima ,879 ,235 ,427 3,743 ,001 ,0005 Diterima ,339 ,160 ,244 2,124 ,042 ,021 Diterima (Constant)

  Turnover Intention

  Model

  1 B Std. Error Unstandardized

  Coefficients Beta

  Standardized Coefficiens t Sig. Sig./2 Hasil

  Dependent Variable: Perilaku Disfungsional a.