DAFTAR PUSTAKA. Valery G Kumaat Internal Audit.Erlangga. Jakarta

DAFTAR PUSTAKA Valery G Kumaat 2011. Internal Audit.Erlangga. Jakarta. Wiliam, steven, doughlas 2014. Jasa audit and assurance, Salemba empat. Jakarta Theodorus M. Tuanakotta 2013. Audit Berbasis ISA International Standards on Auditing, Salemba empat.Jakarta. Randal Marks Alvin Amir Abdi Jusuf. 2011.Auditing. Erlangga. Jakarta Sukrisno Agoes 2012.Auditing Petunjuk Praktis Pemeriksaan oleh Kantor Akuntan Publik Salemba empat. Jakarta Imam ghozali 2013. Aplikasi Analisis multivariate dengan program IBM SPSS 21 Uptodate PLS Regresi.Badan Penerbit Universitas Dipenogoro Semarang Kamus besar bahasa Indonesia tim reality.2008:Tim reality publisher. Surabaya. Mu’azu saidu badara dansiti zabedah saidin. 2014: Bukti empiris anteseden efektivitas audit internal dari perspektif Nigeria.Jurnal Internasional akuntansi Universitas Utara Malaysia. Charvin associate researcher center for risk management studies (CRSM) Indonesia.ISO31000: 2009 :Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines. 2014. Jakarta. Yosua hasudungan nainggolan 2013: Pengaruh keterlibatan auditor internal dalam manajemen risiko perusahaan,manajemen risiko. Universitas Diponegoro. Rizki Zainal 2013 :Pengaruh efektivitas pengendalian intern, asimetri informasi dan kesesuaian kompensasi terhadap kecenderungan kecurangan akuntansi (Fraud) (studi empiris kantor cabang bank pemerintah dan swasta dikota padang). Universitas Negeri Padang (UNP). Kadek, Edi, Nyoman, 2014 :Pengaruh kompetensi auditor internal dan kualitas jasa audit internal terhadap efektivitas pengendalian intern dan perwujudan good corporate governance (GCG) (Studi empiris pada hotel dikawasan lovina kabupaten buleleng), Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. Elly alpinista 2013, Peran dan tanggung jawab internal auditor dalam masalah kecurangan.“Kerjasama antara internal auditor dan ekternal auditor, Netty herawaty Universitas Jambi 2013, ”Pengaruh independensi, keahlian professional dan pengalaman auditor internal terhadap efektivitas penerapan struktur pengendalian intern (Hotel kelas melati dikota jambi) Institute of Internal Audit (IIA)hiro tugiman (2010) definisi audit internal Murtanto dan Gudono.2010, komponen keahlian professional 1

http://digilib.mercubuana.ac.id/

2

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) (Akmal, 2011: 13) Standar Profesi Pemeriksa Intern. Sawyers.2009. Internal auditing, salemba empat. International Standards for the professional practice of internal auditing Rheza Rahadhitya,Darsono 2015: Faktor-faktor yang berpengaruh terhadap efektivitas audit internal (studi pada inspektorat provinsi jawa tengah) Menurut LAN dan BPKP 2000:Pengukuran Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah Fauzi 2007: Pengaruh CSR Terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan Menurut Mulyadi 2008.Auditing2,Salemba Menurut Basri Rivai,2009:Pengukuran Kinerja Prof.Dr.Wiwik Utami 2015 :Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi Fakultas Ekonomi Dan Bisnis Universitas Mercubuana `


3

Empirical Evidence of Antecedents of Internal Audit Effectiveness from Nigerian Perspective Mu’azu Saidu Badara and Siti Zabedah Saidin School of Accountancy, Universiti Utara Malaysia Section 1: The following statement described the internal control system in the local government, based on your perception. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement based on the scale below: 1=Strongly Agree (SA); 2= Agree (A); 3= Neutral (NEU); 4= Disagree (DA); 5= Strongly Disagree (SD) A1. Local government councils ensure adherence to the council policies. 1 2 3 4 5 A2. Local government council provides good control environment that may assist staff in performing their respective duties. 1 2 3 4 5 A3. Local government council carrying out risk assessment activities in order to achieve the local objective. 1 2 3 4 5 A4. Segregation of duties is adequately provided among local staff. 1 2 3 4 5 A5. Local government assets are properly safeguarded and periodically verified. 1 2345 A6. Information on relevant procedures is easy accessible by the local staff. 1 2 3 45 A7. There is proper monitoring of the local government internal control system with the aim of ensuring it effectiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 Section 2: The following statement described how local government manages the identified risk. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement based on the scale below: 1=Strongly Agree (SA); 2= Agree (A); 3= Neutral (NEU); 4= Disagree (DA); 5= Strongly Disagree (SD) B1. Local government council has an established risk management process in place. 1 2 3 4 5 B2. Identification of any kind of risk such as fraud, irregularities or illegal act is easy in the local government. 1 2 3 4 5 B3. Effect of any kind of risk identified in the local government is considered in order to manage it. 1 2 3 4 5 B4. Current control identification enables the minimization of the effect of risk so identified in the local government. 1 2 3 4 5 B5. Evaluation of current control in place improves its effectiveness on risk management in the local government. 1 2 3 4 5 B6. There is proper risk management strategy in place which handles the current control weaknesses in the local government. 1 2 3 4 5 B7. There are proper monitoring activities on the effective application of the policies and activities related to risk management 1 2 3 4 5 Section 3: The following statements assess the experience of internal auditors in the local government. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement based on the scale below: 1=Strongly Agree (SA); 2= Agree (A); 3= Neutral (NEU); 4= Disagree (DA); 5= Strongly Disagree (SD)


4

C1. Internal auditors have the required knowledge on the overall activities of the local government. 1 2 3 4 5 C2. Internal auditors in the local government have adequate knowledge on current internal audit practices of the profession. 1 2 3 4 5 C3. Internal auditors within the local government have professional related training. 1 2 3 4 5 C4. The internal auditors possess sufficient skills (i.e. accounting and auditing) that is relevant to the local government activities. 1 2 3 4 5 C5. The internal auditors used their technical expertise in the local government where necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 Section 4: The following statements assess the cooperation between internal and external auditors in the local government, based on your perception. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement based on the scale below: 1=Strongly Agree (SA); 2= Agree (A); 3= Neutral (NEU); 4= Disagree (DA); 5= Strongly Disagree (SD) D1. Reliance on the local government internal audit is part of the external audit plan. 1 2 3 4 5 D2. External auditor evaluates local government internal audit work before they rely on them. 1 2 3 4 5 D3. Local government internal auditors meet external auditors on a regular basis in order to discuss progress with the aim of 1 2 3 4 5 resolving problems D4. Internal audit of the local government discuss their audit plan with and external auditors. 1 2 3 4 5 D5. Internal audit of the local government communicate with external auditors on their audit findings. 1 2 3 4 5 D6. Internal auditors display kind of assurance to external auditor that they comply with relevant professional standard. 1 2 3 4 5 Section 5: The following statement described the measurement of internal audit performance in the local government, based on your perception. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement based on the scale below: 1=Strongly Agree (SA); 2= Agree (A); 3= Neutral (NEU); 4= Disagree (DA); 5= Strongly Disagree (SD) E1 Local government has an established standard for measuring the performance of internal auditors. 1 2 3 4 5 E2 Local government measure the performance of internal auditors regularly. 1 2 345 E3 The performance of local government internal audit is measured on the basis of established objective. 1 2 3 4 5 E4 Local government has performance indicators which will enable good performance of internal audit. 1 2 3 4 5 E5 Good performance of internal auditors in the local government is rewarded by way of good incentives. 1 2 3 4 5


5

Section 6: The following statement assesses the effectiveness of internal audit in local government level. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement based on the scale below: 1=Strongly Agree (SA); 2= Agree (A); 3= Neutral (NEU); 4= Disagree (DA); 5= Strongly Disagree (SD) F1. The local government have a clear objective for internal audit to achieve 1 2 3 45 F2. Internal audit prepares a suitable audit plan for the execution of such objective. 1 2 3 4 5 F3. Resources are provided in order to complete the audit within the right time. 1 2345 F4. The appointment of internal audit is based on competency. 1 2 3 4 5 F5. The local government auditing is conducted based on auditing standard and procedures 1 2 3 4 5 F6. Audit findings are sufficiently importance without reasonable doubt. 1 2 3 4 5 F7. The audit finding in line with the established objective. 1 2 3 4 5 F8. The audit finding brings improvement in the local government. 1 2 3 4 5 F9. Local council shows satisfaction with the auditor achievement of stated objectives. 1 2 3 4 5


6


7


8

Lampiran Data Output Statistik SPSS Rincian Pengambilan Sampel Keterangan Kuesioner Yang Dikirim Kuesioner Yang Tidak Kembali Kuesioner Yang Kembali Kuesioner Yang Tidak Dapat Digunakan Kuesioner Yang Dapat Digunakan

Jumlah 361 71 290 37 253

Persentase 10% 2% 8% 1% 7%

Profil Responden Jenis_Kelamin Cumulative Frequency Valid

Laki-Laki Perempuan Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

186

73.5

73.5

73.5

67

26.5

26.5

100.0

253

100.0

100.0

Usia_Responden Cumulative Frequency Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

< 25 Tahun

77

30.4

30.4

30.4

26-30 Tahun

150

59.3

59.3

89.7

31-35 Tahun

21

8.3

8.3

98.0

> 36 Tahun

5

2.0

2.0

100.0

253

100.0

100.0

Total


9

Jabatan Cumulative Frequency Valid

Auditor Muda (Ketua Tim)

Percent

Valid Percent

1

.4

.4

.4

20

7.9

7.9

8.3

3

1.2

1.2

9.5

14

5.5

5.5

15.0

Auditor Pelaksana (Auditor Terampil)

215

85.0

85.0

100.0

Total

253

100.0

100.0

Auditor Pertama (Anggota Tim) Auditor Penyelia (Auditor Terampil) Auditor Pelaksana Lanjutan (Auditor Terampil)

Jenjang_Pendidikan Cumulative Frequency Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

D3

34

13.4

13.4

13.4

S1

212

83.8

83.8

97.2

S2

7

2.8

2.8

100.0

253

100.0

100.0

Total

Lama_Kerja Cumulative Frequency Valid

Percent

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

< 5 Tahun

39

15.4

15.4

15.4

6-10 Tahun

192

75.9

75.9

91.3

11-15 Tahun

13

5.1

5.1

96.4

> 16 Tahun

9

3.6

3.6

100.0

253

100.0

100.0

Total


10

Uji Analisis Deskriptif

Descriptive Statistics N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

MANAJEMEN_RESIKO

253

14.00

31.00

24.3202

2.81934

SPI

253

17.00

31.00

26.9644

1.67460

PENGALAMAN_AUDIT

253

13.00

25.00

20.2134

2.86500

KERJASAMA_AUDITOR

253

6.00

29.00

23.3162

3.55384

253

13.00

25.00

19.0000

1.83658

253

24.00

45.00

34.6759

3.02596

PENGUKURAN_KINERJA_ PUSAT EFEKTIVITAS_AUDIT_INTE RNAL Valid N (listwise)

253

Uji Validitas dan Reliabilitas Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items .903

7

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Corrected ItemItem Deleted

Total Correlation

Alpha if Item Deleted

Man_Resiko1

20.7000

20.562

.584

.905

Man_Resiko2

20.5000

20.810

.799

.883

Man_Resiko3

20.7667

19.702

.621

.903

Man_Resiko4

20.5667

20.461

.801

.881

Man_Resiko5

20.4333

20.944

.785

.884

Man_Resiko6

20.5667

20.185

.713

.889

Man_Resiko7

20.6667

18.782

.806

.878


11

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items .743

7

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if

Scale Variance if Corrected Item-

Item Deleted

Item Deleted

Alpha if Item

Total Correlation

Deleted

SPI1

22.1667

8.006

.569

.684

SPI2

22.4333

8.392

.593

.683

SPI3

22.6667

7.678

.508

.702

SPI4

22.4000

8.593

.617

.682

SPI5

22.3667

11.137

.442

.798

SPI6

22.5667

8.668

.522

.699

SPI7

22.8000

8.441

.473

.708


N of Items .873

5



Total Correlation


Peng_Auditor1

16.0667

4.754

.702

.856

Peng_Auditor2

15.6667

4.920

.739

.839

Peng_Auditor3

15.4667

5.499

.737

.837

Peng_Auditor4

15.6000

6.179

.713

.851

Peng_Auditor5

15.6000

6.110

.744

.846


12


N of Items .825

6



Total Correlation


Kerjsm_Auditor1

14.7000

12.838

.495

.816

Kerjsm_Auditor2

14.1667

11.247

.599

.796

Kerjsm_Auditor3

13.6000

11.628

.683

.781

Kerjsm_Auditor4

14.6000

12.317

.587

.800

Kerjsm_Auditor5

14.0333

10.447

.640

.789

Kerjsm_Auditor6

14.0667

10.961

.595

.798


N of Items .776

5


13

Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if

Scale Variance if Corrected Item-

Item Deleted

Item Deleted

Total Correlation


Kinerja_Pst1

15.0667

3.237

.503

.620

Kinerja_Pst2

14.9333

2.271

.553

.126

Kinerja_Pst3

15.1667

2.420

.380

.263

Kinerja_Pst4

15.0667

2.133

.385

.165

Kinerja_Pst5

15.5000

1.914

.408

.317


N of Items .792

9



Total Correlation


Efektv_Auditor1

30.5000

11.224

.388

.784

Efektv_Auditor2

30.2333

11.564

.522

.770

Efektv_Auditor3

30.7667

10.875

.315

.806

Efektv_Auditor4

30.6333

9.275

.634

.748

Efektv_Auditor5

30.2333

10.461

.610

.753

Efektv_Auditor6

30.3667

10.723

.566

.760

Efektv_Auditor7

30.2667

11.237

.698

.755

Efektv_Auditor8

30.3000

11.734

.346

.788

Efektv_Auditor9

30.3000

11.734

.480

.774


14

Uji Normalitas


15

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Unstandardized Residual N Normal Parameters

253 a

Mean

.0000000

Std. Deviation Most Extreme Differences

4.40139200

Absolute

.104

Positive

.093

Negative

-.114

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z

1.710

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

.057

a. Test distribution is Normal.

Uji Multikolinearitas Coefficients

Model 1

Unstandardized

Standardized

Coefficients

Coefficients

B

Std. Error

(Constant)

7.588

2.960

MANAJEMEN_RESIKO

-.023

.054

SPI

.253

PENGALAMAN_AUDIT KERJASAMA_AUDITOR PENGUKURAN_KINERJA_P USAT

a

Beta

Collinearity Statistics t

Sig.

Tolerance

VIF

2.563

.011

-.022

-.432

.666

.926

1.080

.090

.140

2.829

.005

.945

1.058

.216

.069

.205

3.140

.002

.547

1.828

.131

.058

.153

2.262

.025

.505

1.980

1.026

.081

.623

12.705

.000

.967

1.034

a. Dependent Variable: EFEKTIVITAS_AUDIT_INTERNAL


16

Uji Heteroskedastisitas

Uji Hipotesis b

Model Summary

Model 1

R .653

R Square a

.426

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate .414

2.31553

a. Predictors: (Constant), PENGUKURAN_KINERJA_PUSAT, PENGALAMAN_AUDIT, SPI, MANAJEMEN_RESIKO, KERJASAMA_AUDITOR b. Dependent Variable: EFEKTIVITAS_AUDIT_INTERNAL


17

b

ANOVA Model 1

Sum of Squares Regression

df

Mean Square

983.089

5

196.618

Residual

1324.334

247

5.362

Total

2307.423

252

F

Sig.

36.671

.000

a

a. Predictors: (Constant), PENGUKURAN_KINERJA_PUSAT, PENGALAMAN_AUDIT, SPI, MANAJEMEN_RESIKO, KERJASAMA_AUDITOR b. Dependent Variable: EFEKTIVITAS_AUDIT_INTERNAL

Coefficients

a

Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1

B

Std. Error

(Constant)

7.588

2.960

MANAJEMEN_RESIKO

-.023

.054

SPI

.253

PENGALAMAN_AUDIT KERJASAMA_AUDITOR PENGUKURAN_KINERJA_ PUSAT

Coefficients Beta

t

Sig.

2.563

.011

-.022

-.432

.666

.090

.140

2.829

.005

.216

.069

.205

3.140

.002

.131

.058

.153

2.262

.025

1.026

.081

.623

12.705

.000

a. Dependent Variable: EFEKTIVITAS_AUDIT_INTERNAL


18


19


20


21


22


23


DAFTAR PUSTAKA. Valery G Kumaat Internal Audit.Erlangga. Jakarta

Recommend Documents