Moderate of Professional Skepticism: Moral Reasoning, Independence, and Auditor Competence on Audit Quality

Abstract

This study aims to provide empirical evidence on the influence of moral reasoning, independence and auditor competence on audit quality with professional skepticism as a moderation. In this study, the population used is all Public Accounting Firms in Bali, totaling 17 spread across the Bali region. The sample is part of the number and characteristics of the population. The sample of this study was 27 auditors. The data analysis technique in the study used quantitative methods. The results of the study indicate that auditor moral reasoning does not have a significant influence on audit quality. Although moral reasoning is considered important in maintaining auditor ethics and integrity, in the context of this study, it has not been proven to significantly improve audit quality. Independence, which in theory is an important pillar in the implementation of an audit, also does not show a significant influence on audit quality. This shows that auditor independence alone is not enough to guarantee better audit quality in the context of this study. Auditor competence has been shown to have a significant and positive influence on audit quality. Auditors who have high knowledge and skills can produce better quality audits, emphasizing the importance of developing competence as a key factor in audit practice. The conclusion of this study is that professional skepticism moderates the influence of moral reasoning and competence on audit quality, while professional skepticism cannot moderate the effect of independence on audit quality.