DAFTAR PUSTAKA Adela, Socol, 2010. “Significant Doubt About the Going Concern Assumption in Audit”. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(1), 2010 Allen D. Blay, L. Dwight Sneathen, Jr and Tim Kizirian, 2007. “The Effects of Fraud and Goingconcern Risk on Auditors’ Assessments of the Risk of Material Misstatement and Resulting Audit Procedures”. International Journal of Auditing 149-163 Altman, E dan McGough, T. 1974. “Evaluation of A Company as A Going Concern”. Journal of Accountancy. December. 50-57. Ann, Vanstraelen, 2002, “Going Concern Opion, Auditor’s Switching, and Self – Fulfilling Prophecy Effect Examined in Regulatory Context of Belgium”. Barnes, Paul dan HD. Huan. 1993. “The Auditors Going Concern Decision” : Some UK Evidence Concerning Independence and Competence”. Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting 20(2). Januari. 213-228. Craswell, A. T., J. R. Francis, and S. L. Taylor. 1995. “Auditor Brand Name Reputations and Industry Specializations”. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20 (December) : 297-322. Desak Nyoman , Sri Werastuti, 2013 “ Pengaruh Auditor Client Tenure, Debt Default, Reputasi Auditor, Ukuran Klien dan Kondisi Keuangan terhadap Kualitas Audit melalui Opini Audit Going Concern. E-Jurnal FEB Undiksha
Eko Setyarno, Indira Januarti dan Faisal. 2007. “Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Kondisi Keuangan Perusahaan, Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya, Pertumbuhan Perusahaan Terhadap Opini Opini Audit Going Concern”. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Bisnis, Vol 7, No. 2pp 129-140. Hardrian Nur Azhari, 2013, “Pengaruh Pertumbuhan Perusahaan, Audit Report Lag, Dan Reputasi KAP terhadap Penerimaan Opini Going Concern pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia, Periode 2010-2012”, Skripsi Universitas Mercu Buana Hasnah Haron, Bambang Hartadi, Mahfooz Ansari and Ishak Ismail, 2009. “Factor Influecing Auditor’s Going Concern Opinion . Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1–19, January 2009. Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800 USM Pulau Pinang, Malaysia Indira , Januarti , 2008. “Analisis Pengaruh Faktor Perusahaan, Kualitas Auditor, Kepemilikan Perusahaan Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern (Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia)”. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Bisnis, Universitas Diponegoro. Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia, 2011, Standard Profesional Akuntan Publik , Salemba Empat, Jakarta
John Stephen Grice, Sr, “Bankruptcy Prediction Models and Going Concern Audit Opinions Before and After SAS No. 59” Hadi Mashadi, Gharaghayah, Azita Jahanshad, Somayye Adhami, 2013 “An analysis of determinants of going concern audit opinion: Evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange Michael S. Long and Stephan E.Sefcik, “Closely Held Firms As Going Concerns”. Rutger University and University of Washington. Nina Sormunen and Teija Laitinen, 2007. “Late financial distress process stages and financial ratios: Evidence for auditors’ going concern evaluation”. International Journal of Business and Economics, 2007. LTA 1 / 1 2 • p . 4 1 – 6 9. Pramesti, Getut, 2013 “ Smart Olah Data Penelitian dengan SPSS 21 “ , Penerbit PT.Elex Media Komputindo, Gramedia Rahayu, Puji, 2007. “ Assessing Going Concern Opinion : a study bases on Financial and Non Financial Information”. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi X. Ramadhany, Alexander, 2004. Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Penerimaan Opini Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktiur Yang Mengalami Financial Distress di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Tesis Program Magister Akuntansi Universitas Diponegoro ( tidak dipublikasikan ).
Rich , Gildersleeve, 1999 “Winning Businesss” Chapter Chapter Using Altman’s Z – score to Determine the Probability of Bankruptcy page 181 Rizky.M 2012. “Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit ( Going Concern) Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2008-2010. Santosa, Arga Fajar dan Linda Kusumaning Wedari. 2007. “Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kecenderungan Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern”. Jurnal Akuntansi Setyarno, Eko Budi dkk, 2006. “Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Kondisi Keuangan Perusahaan, Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya dan Pertumbuhan Perusahaan terhadap opini Audit Going Concern”. Jurnal Akuntansi Singgih, Santoso, 2014. “Statistik Parametrik, Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan SPSS ”, Edisi Revisi , Penerbit PT Elex Media Komputindo, Gramedia Tae, G.Ryu, Chul-Young Roh, 2007.“The Auditor’s Going Concern Opinion Decision”. International Journal of Business and Economics, 2007, Vol 6, No.2, 89-101 Teoh.S.1992. “Auditor Independence, Dismissal Threats, and The Market Reaction to Auditor Switches. Jurnal of Accounting Research 30.Pp 1-23
Tri Kurniawati, 2013. “Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Audit Delay ( Studi Empiris pada Persauahaan Sektor Industri Dasar – Kimia dan Sektor Aneka Industri yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2010– 2011 )”, Skripsi Universitas Mercu Buana Uyanto, Stanislaus S, 2009 “ Pedoman Analisis Data dengan SPSS “ , Edisi 3 Graha Ilmu Yuli, Yanti, 2013. “ Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Kondisi Keuangan Perusahaan, Opini Audit tahun Sebelumnya, Pertumbuhan Perusahaan, Ukuran Perusahaan Terhadap Opini Audit Hoing Concern “ , Skripsi Universitas Mercu Buana Zuwinda Handari Rahmiyati, 2011. “ Effect of Liquidity ,Solvency, Quality Audit, Audit Opion Prior years, Company’s growth Managerial Ownership and Intitutional Acceptance of Going Concern Opinion” Universitas Gunadarma
LAMPIRAN Logistic Regression
Case Processing Summary Unweighted Casesa N Percent Included in 45 100.0 Analysis Selected Cases Missing Cases 0 .0 Total 45 100.0 Unselected Cases 0 .0 Total 45 100.0 a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of cases.
Dependent Variable Encoding Original Value Internal Value Tidak Opini Going 0 Concern Opini Going Concern 1 Block 0: Beginning Block Classification Tablea,b Observed
Tidak Opini Going OpiniGoingConce Concern Step 0 rn Opini Going Concern Overall Percentage a. Constant is included in the model. b. The cut value is .500
Predicted OpiniGoingConcern Tidak Opini Opini Going Going Concern Concern 41 0 4
0
Percentage Correct
100.0 .0 91.1
Step 0 Constant
Variables in the Equation B S.E. Wald df -2.327 .524 19.739 1
Variables not in the Equation Score FinancialDistress .649 Size 4.123 KualitasAudit .213 Variables KepemilikanManajeria .777 Step 0 l KepemilikanInstitusio 2.161 nal Overall Statistics 8.580
Block 1: Method = Enter
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square df Sig. Step 10.783 5 .056 Step 1 Block Model
10.783 10.783
5 5
.056 .056
Model Summary Step -2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke likelihood R Square R Square a 1 16.213 .213 .472 a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 20 because maximum iterations has been reached. Final solution cannot be found.
Sig. Exp(B) .000 .098
df 1 1 1 1
Sig. .420 .042 .644 .378
1
.142
5
.127
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test Step Chi-square df Sig. 1 1.600 7 .979
1 2 3 4 Step 1 5 6 7 8 9
Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test OpiniGoingConcern = Tidak OpiniGoingConcern = Opini Opini Going Concern Going Concern Observed Expected Observed Expected 5 5.000 0 .000 5 5.000 0 .000 5 5.000 0 .000 5 4.998 0 .002 5 4.982 0 .018 5 4.926 0 .074 5 4.449 0 .551 3 3.863 2 1.137 3 2.782 2 2.218
Total
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Classification Tablea Observed
Tidak Opini Going OpiniGoingConce Concern Step 1 rn Opini Going Concern Overall Percentage a. The cut value is .500
Predicted OpiniGoingConcern Tidak Opini Opini Going Going Concern Concern 40 1 4
0
Percentage Correct
97.6 .0 88.9
Variables in the Equation B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) FinancialDistress -1.779 2.050 .753 1 .385 .169 Size 3.038 2.165 1.969 1 .161 20.853 KualitasAudit -4.686 4.169 1.264 1 .261 .009 KepemilikanManajeria -440.257 67645.911 .000 1 .995 .000 Step 1a l KepemilikanInstitusio 1.716 4.344 .156 1 .693 5.564 nal Constant -84.472 58.759 2.067 1 .151 .000 a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: FinancialDistress, Size, KualitasAudit, KepemilikanManajerial, KepemilikanInstitusional.
