:: Volume 6, Issue 11 (8-2021) ::
aapc 2021, 6(11): 1-40 Back to browse issues page
A Meta-Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Behavior of Auditors to Acceptance of Information Technology
Arash Tahriri Dr 1, Akram Afsay2
1- Associate Prof., Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. (Corresponding Author) , arashtahriri@ut.ac.ir
2- Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.(a.afsay@ut.ac.ir)
Abstract:   (3789 Views)
Advances in technology and the evolution of today's business world have challenged auditors with the obsolescence of traditional auditing methods. In such circumstances, the necessity and importance of using technology in the audit process are apparent. In recent decades, many studies have been conducted to identify factors affecting the acceptance of technology by auditors. The dispersion of the results and the time-consuming nature of the study, and the understanding of this phenomenon in the literature have provided a specific space for additional research to combine and integrate all available information. The purpose of this study was to integrate the results of experimental research conducted in this field and provide an objective and comprehensive picture of the factors previously identified on the acceptance of technology by auditors. In line with the research objectives, all existing literature and studies on the factors affecting the acceptance of technology in the auditing profession were combined using the meta-analysis method. Sixty-nine studies and twenty main and widely used relationships in technology acceptance in the audit profession were identified and analyzed. In addition, many relationships were adjusted based on country of origin and user type. The findings showed that all identified relationships are statistically significant. The most important factors in accepting technology from an individual perspective were identified as perceived usefulness, facilitator conditions and understanding of ease of use. Also, the most important factors in accepting technology from an organizational perspective were identified as cost-benefit technology, competitive pressure, technology-duty adaptation, and company readiness, respectively. The findings of this study can be used by professional policymakers, partners of auditing firms, employees in the profession, legislative bodies, and academics with creating a clear insight toward the effective factors for implementing technology in auditing firms.
Keywords: Information technology, auditing, technology acceptance, meta-analysis.
Full-Text [PDF 456 kb]   (1251 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2021/04/26 | Accepted: 2021/07/6 | Published: 2021/08/23
References
1. Ahmi, A., and S. Kent. 2013. The utilisation of generalized audit software (GAS). Managerial Auditing Journal 28(2): 88–113.
2. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 211(50): 179–211.
3. Al-Ansi, A. A., N.A. Bin Ismail, and A.K. Al-Swidi. 2013. The effect of IT knowledge and IT training on the IT utilization among external auditors: evidence from Yemen. Asian Social Science 9(10): 307-323.
4. Al-Hiyari, A. 2019. Factors That Influence the Use of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (Caats) By Internal Auditors in Jordan. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 23(3).
5. Anderson, S. F., K. Kelley, and S. E. Maxwell. 2017. Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias. Psychological Science 28(11): 1547–1562.
6. Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and Y. Kao. 2002. Impact of information technology on public accounting firm productivity. Journal of Information Systems 16 (2): 209-222.
7. Baptista, G, and T. Oliveira. 2016. A weight and a meta-analysis on mobile banking acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 480–489.
8. Bedard, J. C. 2003. The Roles of Task and Technical Knowledge in Acceptance of Information Technology Among Preparers and Reviewers of Audit Workpapers. Accessed on May 24th.
9. Bedard, J. C., C. Jackson., M. L. Ettredge, and K. M. Johnstone. 2003. The effect of training on auditors’acceptance of an electronic work system. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 4(4):227–250.
10. Bierstaker, J., D. Janvrin, and D.J. Lowe. 2014. What factors influence auditors' use of computer-assisted audit techniques? Adv. Account 30: 67–74.
11. Bonsón, E., and C. Borrero. 2011. Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Adoption and Use of Continuous Audit Tools and Techniques: Comparison Between the Public and Private Sector. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences 1(3): 8–16.
12. Borenstein, M., L. V. Hedges., J. P. T. Higgins, and H. R. Rothstein. 2010. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 1(2): 97–111.
13. Bozkurt, O., and N. Çakmak, 2020. Teknoloji Kabul Modeli Perspektifinden Bağımsız Denetçilerin Bilgisayar Destekli Denetim Programlarını Kullanıma Ilişkin Tutum Ve Davranışlarının Potansiyel Fayda Beklentisi Üzerine Etkisi, BMIJ 8(4): 607-646.
14. Cao, M., R. Chychyla, and T. Stewart. 2015. Big data analytics in financial statement audits. Accounting Horizons 29(2): 423–429.
15. Chafik, K., and H. Mghizou. 2018. Study of the acceptance and effect of audit automation software used by financial auditors on the legal mission. Information Systems Management & Innovation 2(1).
16. Cook, T. D. 1991. Meta-analysis: Its potential for causal description and causal explanation within program evaluation. In W. de Gruyter (Ed.). Social prevention and the social sciences: Theoretical controversies, research problems, and evaluation strategies 245–285.
17. Curtis, M.B, and E.A. Payne. 2014. Modeling voluntary CAAT utilization decisions in auditing. Manag. Audit. J, 13 (4): 304–326.
18. Curtis, MB, and E.A. Payne. 2008. An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing. Int J Account Inf Syst 9(2):104–121.
19. Daoud, L., A. Mareib., S.M. Al-Jabaly, and A. AldaaS. 2021. Moderating the role of top management commitment in usage of computer-assisted auditing techniques. Accounting 7: 457–468.
20. Darmaningtyas, I. G. B., and K. A. Suardana. 2017. Pengaruh Technology Acceptance Model (TAM ) dalam Penggunaan Software Oleh Auditor yang Berimplikasi Pada Kinerja Auditor. E-Jurnal Akuntansi 21(21): 2448-2478.
21. Davis, FD., RP. Bagozzi, and PR. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of theoretical models. Manag
22. Dharma, D.P.B., P.I. Sandhyaduhita., A.A. Pinem, and A.N. Hidayanto. 2017. Antecedents of intention-to-use of e-audit system: a case of the audit board of the republic of Indonesia. International Journal of Business Information Systems 26(2): 185-204.
23. DiMaggio, P., and WW. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational. American sociological review 48 (2): 147-160.
24. Diaz, M.C., and T. Loraas. 2010. Learning new uses of technology while on an audit engagement: Contextualizing general models to advance pragmatic understanding, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems11: 61-77.
25. Dolinsek, S, and A. Janes. 2008. Development of the Technology Audit Model. in Menagement International Conference of the Faculty of Management Koper, MIC.
26. Dowling, C. 2009. Appropriate audit support system use: The infuence of auditor and audit team. The Accounting Review 84(3): 771–810.
27. Ebimobowei, A., GN. Ogbonna, and P. Enebraye. 2013. Auditor’s‎ Usage‎ of‎ Computer‎ Assisted‎ Audit‎ Tools and Techniques: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6 (2): 187-95.
28. Fembriyanto, S. B., Trisno, M., Manalu, G. (2019). The effect of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and complexity upon the acceptance of computerized audit tehnique (ACAT) at the Finance and Development Supervisory Agency (FDSA) Republic of Indonesia. The Accounting Journal of BINANIAGA, 4 (1), 15-26.
29. Fishbein, M, and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction Theory. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
30. Gonzalez, G., P.N. Sharma, and D. Galletta. 2012. The Antecedents of Internal Auditors' Adoption of Continuous Auditing Technology: Exploring UTAUT in an Organizational Context. 7th University of Waterloo Research Symposium on Information Integrity and Information Systems Assurance, Toronto, Canada.
31. Hamari, J, and L. Keronen. 2017. Why do people buy virtual goods: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 71: 59–69.
32. Hamari, J., and J. Koivisto. 2015. Why do people use gamification services? International Journal of Information Management 35(4): 419–431.
33. Hasan, B. 2007. Examining the effects of computer self-efficacy and system complexity on technology acceptance. Information Resources Management Journal 20(3): 76–88.
34. Higgins, J., S. Thompson., J. Deeks., and D. Altman. 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 32 (14): 557-560.
35. Huang, S. M., Y.-C. Hung., and H.-H Tsao. 2008. Examining the determinants of computer assisted audit techniques acceptance from internal auditors. International Journal of Services and Standards 4 (4): 377–392.
36. Hunter, J. E, and F. L. Schmidt. 2014. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings, Sage publications.
37. Janvrin, D., D.J. Lowe, and J. Bierstaker. 2009. Auditor acceptance of computer assisted audit techniques. American Accounting Association Auditing Mid Year Meeting AAA, St Petersburg, FL, p. 1.
38. Janvrin, D., J. Bierstaker., and D.J. Lowe. 2008, An examination of audit information technology use and perceived importance. Accounting Horizons 22(1): 1-21.
39. Karahanna, E., and D. W. Straub. 2001. The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease of-use. Information & Management 35: 237-250.
40. Khalil, A, B., and N. Olfa. 2020. Factors That Influence the Adoption of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) by External Auditors in Yemen. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting 10(2): 2162-3082.
41. Kim, H. J., M. Mannino., and R.J. Nieschwietz. 2009. Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: impact of technology features. Int.J. Account. Inf. Syst 10: 214–228.
42. King, W. R., J. He. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 43(6): 740–755.
43. Kusumadewi, A. W. 2017. Study on auditor’s attitude in using information technology for auditing: Theory of planned behavior and social cognitive theory modification. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences 6 (66): 602-617.
44. Li, H., J. Dai., T. Gershberg, and M. Vasarhelyi. 2018. Understanding usage and value of audit analytics for internal auditors: an organizational approach, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 28: 59–76.
45. Lipsey, M.W., and D. B. Wilson. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Applied Social Research Methods 49: 1-247.
46. Lowe, D.J., J.L. Bierstaker., D.J. Janvrin, and J.G., Jenkins. 2018. Information technology in an audit context: have the big 4 lost their advantage?. J. Inf. Syst 32 (1): 87–107.
47. Mahdavi, G., and M. Karimi. 2012. An Investigation in to Auditors’ Tendency toward using IT Achievements: Independent Auditors’ View. American Journal of Scientific Research 80: 54-61.
48. Mahzan, N., and A. Lymer. 2008. Adoption of computer assisted audit tools and techniques (CAATs) by internal auditors: Current issues in the UK. Proceedings of the British Accounting Association Annual Conference, Blackpool, UK.
49. Mansour, E. M. 2016. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques in Audit Process: Findings from Jordan. Business and Economic Research 6(1): 248-271.
50. Martens, D., L. Bruynseels., B. Baesens., M. Willekens., and J. Vanthienen. 2014. Predicting going concern opinion with data mining. Decis. Support. Syst 45: 765–777.
51. Payne, E. A., and M. B. Curtis. 2017. Factors Associated with Auditors’ Intention to Train on Optional Technology. Curr. Issues Audit 11(1).
52. Pedrosa, I., C. J. Costa., and M. Aparicio. 2019. Determinants adoption of computer-assisted auditing tools.Cognition, Technology and Work.
53. Pedrosa, I., C. J. Costa., and R. M. Laureano. 2015. Motivations and limitations on the use of information technology on statutory auditors' work: An exploratory study. In the 10th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, IEEE, Aveiro, Portugal: 1-6.
54. Pongpattrachai, D. 2010. The model of Infusion in small audit firms in Thailand. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Thailand.
55. Ramen, M., B. Jugurnath, and P. Ramhit. 2015. UTR-CTOE: a new paradigm explaining CAATs adoption. J Mod Account Audit 11(12): 615–631.
56. Rana, N. P., Y. K. Dwivedi., and M. D. Williams. 2015. A meta-analysis of existing research on citizen adoption of e-government. Information Systems Frontiers 17(3): 547–563.
57. Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
58. Rosli, K., E. Siew., and P. H. P. Yeow. 2016. Technological, organisational and environmental aspects of audit technology acceptance. International Journal of Business and Management 11(5): 140–145.
59. Rosli, K., P. H. Yeow., and E. G. Siew. 2012. Factors influencing audit technology acceptance by audit firms: A new I-TOE adoption framework. Journal of Accounting and Auditing.
60. Sari, D. P., and A. Rahman.2019. Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Minat Pemanfaatan Teknologi Informasi bagi Auditor. Journal of Economic, Bussines and Accounting 2(2): 202-211.
61. Shihab, M.R., N. Meilatinova., and A.N. Hidayanto. 2018. determinants of CAATT acceptance: insights from public accounting firms in Indonesia. Proceeding of the 4th information systems international conference, Procedia Comput 522–529.
62. Siew, E.-G., K. Rosli., P.H.P. Yeow. 2019. Organizational and environmental influences in the adoption of computer- assisted audit tools, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems.
63. Simon, B. 2001. Knowledge media in the education system: acceptance research in universities. WU Vienna University of Economics and Business: Wien, Austria 179.
64. Suryandini, D. 2010. Aplikasi model penerimaan teknologi dalam penggunaan software audit oleh duditor. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi 2(2): 92-102.
65. Taherdoost, H. 2018. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manufacturing 22: 960-967.
66. Tangke, N. 2004. Analisa Penerimaan Penerapan Teknik Audit Berbantuan Komputer (TABK) dengan Menggunakan Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) pada Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) RI. Jurnal Akuntansi Keuangan 6(1): 10–28.
67. Tao, D., W. Tieyan., W. Tieshan., Z. Tingru., Z. Xiaoyan., and Q. Xingda. 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis of user acceptance of consumer-oriented health information technologies. Computers in Human Behavior.
68. Tiberius, V., and S. Hirth. 2019. Impacts of Digitization on Auditing: A Delphi Study for Germany, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation.
69. Tijani, O. M. 2014. Built-In Functions and Features of Data Analysis Software: Predictors of Optimal Deployment for Continuous Audit Assurance. Sch. J.Econ. Bus.Manag (1)1: 7–18.
70. Tornatzky, L. G., and M. Fleischer. 1990. The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington MA, Lexington Books.
71. Van Den Broek, T., and A.F. Van Veenstra. 2018. Governance of Big Data collaborations: how to balance regulatory compliance and disruptive innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 129: 330–338.
72. Vasarhelyi, M. A., and M. G. Alles. 2008. Reengineering business reporting creating a test bed for technology driven reporting.
73. Venkatesh, V., M G. Morris., GB. Davis., and FD. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3): 425-478.
74. Widuri, R., B. L. Handoko, and I. C. Prabowo. 2019. Adoption of Information Technology in Public Accounting Firm. Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Big Data and Computing 198–202.
75. Widuri, R., B. O’Connell, and P.W. Yapa. 2016. Adopting generalized audit software: an Indonesian perspective. Manag. Audit. J 31 (8/9): 821–847.
76. Witte, A., C. Thibodeau, and Earley, E. 2020. Managing the Technological Revolution: How Audit Partners Nurture. Control, and Standardize Change. Electronic Journal 21(1).
77. Zhu, K., and K. L. Kraemer. 2005. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e business by organisations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information systems research 16(1): 61-84.

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 6, Issue 11 (8-2021) Back to browse issues page