Auditor's perception in usage of audit information technology in Vietnam

82) 
2.019 
(<0.05**) 
-1.493 
(<0.1*) 
-1.721 
(<0.05**) 
0.26 
Sample 0.379 
(0.705) 
3.114 
(<0.05**) 
-2.358 
(<0.05**) 
-2.850 
(<0.05**) 
0.36 
Fraud evaluation 4.171 
(<0.1*) 
1.679 
(<0.1*) 
-2.295 
(<0.05**) 
-1.671 
(<0.1*) 
0.453 
Evaluation of audit evidence 0.530 
(0.597) 
0.627 
(0.532) 
1.541 
(0.126) 
-1.111 
(0.269) 
0.03 
Calculate, physical examination 1.274 
(0.205) 
-0.03 
(0.998) 
-0.649 
(0.517) 
-1.381 
(0.17) 
0.024 
Analytical review -0.664 
(<0.05**) 
2.616 
(<0.01***) 
-1.10 
(0.274) 
-2.362 
(<0.05**) 
0.297 
Check the details 1.587 
(<0.1*) 
-0.209 
(0.835) 
-1.311 
(0.192) 
-2.117 
(<0.05**) 
0.23 
Write a report 1.306 
(<0.1*) 
2.896 
(<0.01***) 
-1.551 
(<0.1*) 
-2.588 
(<0.01***) 
0.32 
Note: *, ** and *** express the meaning at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively 
The results in Table 11 illustrate the connection between the perception of the use of 
audit technology in auditing procedures and the characteristics of the firm/auditor. The 
coefficients of interceptions are not reported. 
The type of auditing firm involved in the use of audit technology, however, some audit 
procedures are not statistically significant such as customer acceptance, audit preparation, 
internal audit evaluation, risk assessment, sampling, audit evidence, physical examination (P-
values of 0.27, 0.242, 0.354, 0.882, 0.705, 0.597; 0.205 respectively). 
As we have speculated, the number of years of experience is related to the use of audit 
technology in auditing procedures. Therefore, many years of experience auditors are in the 
firm, they are less likely to be aware of the use of audit technology to be in the audit 
procedures. Achieved results are conventional for most audit procedures. For audit procedures 
to accept customers, prepare audits, internal control assessment, audit evidence evaluation, 
material examination calculations, detailed test results are not significant at 0.1 (p-values are 
0.75, 0.796, 0.992, 0.532, 0.998, and 0.835 respectively). Whereby, workers have little 
n trÞ - Kinh nghiÖm quèc tÕ vµ thùc tr¹ng ë ViÖt Nam 
 23 
business more knowledge of technology is useful in enhancing their work Improve 
productivity and productivity. Therefore, technology can be considered a competitive industry 
to advance their career advancement. 
For IT qualifications, the results show that the level of IT expertise of active auditors is 
closely linked to the use of audit techniques in auditing procedures. Users with more expertise 
have overcome any technological worries. 
 Information and focus on the usefulness of technology, while those who use less 
information technology are interested in using IT easily. However, the IT level of the auditor 
does not affect audit procedures: auditing, calculating, material inspection, analysis and 
detailed examination (p-values: 0.532, 0.998, and 0.835). 
As far as positions are concerned, we find that the position influences the use of 
information technology in the audit technique. The higher the position, the more information 
technology is required. 
 The coefficients of most audit procedures are significant at the normal level. An 
explanation of the negligible results for some audit procedures is that the respondent is 
considered Lack of knowledge / expertise in IT auditors as one of the primary obstacles to the 
use of audit technology. Overall, our results confirm our expectation. 
Table 12: Characteristics of Audit Firms vs. Determinants Impacting Audit Technology 
Attributes Audit firm 
type 
No. years of 
experiences 
IT level Position R2 
To improve the quality of the audit -0.196 
(0.845) 
2.455 
(<0.01***) 
1.138 
(<0.1*) 
-2.492 
(<0.01***) 
0.289 
To minimize the time and cost of audit 
tasks 
2.021 
(<0.05**) 
1.353 
(<0.1*) 
-1.673 
(<0.1*) 
-1.119 
(0.246) 
0.25 
To survive in an IT-based audit 
environment 
-0.115 
(0.908) 
3.114 
(<0.05**) 
1.955 
(<0.05**) 
-1.487 
(<0.1*) 
0.32 
To gain competitive advantage over 
other firms 
0.799 
(0.426) 
1.271 
(0.206) 
-0.853 
(0.395) 
-1.7656 
(<0.1*) 
0.182 
Allows auditors to operate anywhere -0.53 
(0.958) 
1.299 
(0.196) 
0.52 
(0.604) 
0.586 
(0.559) 
0.027 
To better manage the audit process 2.275 
(<0.01*) 
1.115 
(0.252) 
0.15 
(0.988) 
-1951 
(<0.1*) 
0.275 
To unite globally 1.957 
(<0.1*) 
2.883 
(<0.01***) 
0.073 
(<0.1*) 
-0.06 
(0.544) 
0.327 
To meet the expectations of customers 1.605 
(<0.1*) 
2.798 
(<0.01***) 
0.083 
(0.934) 
-2.214 
(<0.05**) 
0.296 
To minimize the risk of auditing 0.813 
(0.418) 
0.711 
(0.479) 
-2.118 
(<0.05**) 
-2.318 
(<0.05**) 
0.264 
To simplify the audit process 2.484 
(<0.01***) 
1.289 
(0.2) 
-2.029 
(<0.05**) 
-2.212 
(<0.05**) 
0.298 
Pay more attention to risk areas 1.406 
(<0.1*) 
2.267 
(<0.05**) 
0.758 
(0.45) 
0.441 
(0.66) 
0.302 
Note: *, ** and *** express the meaning at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively 
Audit implementation is conducted by using audit technology has some consequences 
as below: 
n trÞ - Kinh nghiÖm quèc tÕ vµ thùc tr¹ng ë ViÖt Nam 
 24 
Table 13: Consequences of Audit Technology Usage in Audit Performance 
Attributes Audit firm 
type 
No. years of 
experiences 
IT level Position R2 
The assessment of partner/manager's 
work was done in a timely manner 
-1.217 
(0.226) 
1.472 
(<0.1*) 
1.354 
(<0.1*) 
-0.333 
(0.74) 
0.195 
Experienced staff has more time to 
focus on high risk areas 
-0.331 
(0.741) 
3.183 
(<0.01***) 
1.508 
(<0.1*) 
-0.440 
(0.660) 
0.306 
The assessment of partner / manager 
work has been made easier 
0.08 
(0.936) 
0.717 
(0.475) 
-7.95 
(0.428) 
-1.242 
(0.217) 
0.134 
Emphasis is put on recruiting audits 
with IT skills 
-1.343 
(<0.1*) 
2.252 
(<0.05**) 
0.061 
(0.952) 
-2.240 
(<0.05**) 
0.287 
Many audit tasks have been simplified 0.913 
(0.363) 
1.508 
(0.134) 
-0.3 
(0.765) 
-1.217 
(0.226) 
0.167 
Job satisfaction of auditors increased 0.847 
(0.398) 
2.049 
(<0.05**) 
-0.824 
(0.412) 
-0.588 
(0.558) 
0.125 
Other IT professionals recruited by 
audit firms 
1.827 
(<0.1*) 
1.43 
(<0.1*) 
-5.4 
(0.59) 
-1.787 
(<0.1*) 
0.223 
IT auditors hold higher positions in 
audit firms 
2.858 
(<0.01***) 
0.882 
(0.380) 
-0.825 
(0.411) 
-1.161 
(0.248) 
0.269 
Note: *, ** and *** express the meaning at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively 
Looking at Table 12 shows the results of examining the relationship between cognitive 
reasoning using audit technology in the auditing process and demographic characteristics of 
the participants. Highly educated, postgraduate, and cognitive respondents improved audit 
quality, reduced audit time and costs, reduced audit risk, and simplified process Audit is the 
most important in the use of audit technology. On the other hand, when respondents have 
more years of experience, they perceive that the reasons are not relevant weight. This end 
result may be due to years of experience with relatively low levels of participation in IT 
training, by reducing confidence in their ability to learn (Cleveland and Shore, 1992). The 
respondents had a large number of ICT specialists considering all the significant reasons, 
while respondents at management level, supervisory level, or partner level thought that the 
most important reasons for using the test technology The math is to minimize the time and 
expense of task audit, to minimize audit risk, and to pay more attention to the risk area. In 
general, the global coefficients are consistent and satisfying customer expectations are 
negligible at levels usually, common, normal. However, the significance of the determinants 
increases with the level of IT expertise of the auditor. 
Regarding the link between the cognitive consequences of using audit technology and 
the characteristics of the respondents, the results in Table 13 reveal that respondents have a 
graduate degree, With less experience, Knowledge of IT and management positions is 
n trÞ - Kinh nghiÖm quèc tÕ vµ thùc tr¹ng ë ViÖt Nam 
 25 
recognized by the review of the work of the partners / managers and Emphasis on recruiting 
IT auditors is one of the most important consequences. 
Overall, these findings are consistent with previous results that respondents with 
postgraduate education and IT expertise are more affected by perceptive ease of use. 
5. Conclusions and Recommendations 
Although auditing standards encourage the use of information technology in auditing, 
previous studies lacked the use of accounting technology in industrial revolution markets 4.0. 
The contribution of our article stems from its application to a revolutionary 4.0 technology 
environment, unlike previous studies that focused primarily on development markets. These 
results are particularly relevant for auditors, managers, and the academic community on 
improving the quality of audits by using audit technology. 
Audit technology is widely used in both technical and administrative audits of 
Preparation of Working Documents and Sampling. Auditors generally consider audit 
technology to be most important in risk assessment and sampling. For the use and importance 
of audit technology in administrative auditing procedures, issue customer invoices and 
summarize the results to review the top-ranked list. The leading reason for using audit 
technology is that it is important to improve the quality of auditing. However, the lack of 
auditor training and Lack of knowledge / expertise in IT of auditors are considered as the 
main constraints to the use of audit technology. This reflects a general cultural trend that 
needs further investigation. 
The determinants are most likely to explain why the nature and extent of interaction 
differ between the Big 4 and the non-Big 4 firms including their training facilities, expertise, 
and administrative support. Such determinants can affect the degree of cultural integration and 
reflect appropriately the adoption of IT in Vietnamese audit firms. To investigate the impact, 
if any, of such determinants, requires an interview-based survey to assess the extent of the 
cultural integration process and its potential impact on IT levels. And / or respondents' 
perceptions of the use of IT in the audit process. 
Finally, regarding the relationship between the use of the recognized technology and the 
characteristics of the firm / auditor, our evidence suggests that the use of technology audits in 
auditing procedures The assessment is significant when the IT auditor level increases, and 
when the auditing firm is a large firm 4, while the use of audit technology in auditing 
procedures is reduced by the auditor's experience. More detailed analysis provides rich results 
on specific determinants that shape the perception of respondents about the importance of 
audit technology. This perception is significantly affected by the demographic characteristics 
of the auditor. These results have significant implications for the decision to apply audit 
technology in audit firms. 
There are some limitations to this study. First, the main limitation of this study is the 
relatively small number of responses. Although respondents may be the ones who are most 
concerned about the issues being investigated and therefore, as can be said, are also the most 
informed, their views may not represent those people are not respondents. Second, the sample 
was not balanced because respondents from other audit firms were over represented by Big 4's 
big firms. 
n trÞ - Kinh nghiÖm quèc tÕ vµ thùc tr¹ng ë ViÖt Nam 
 26 
----------------------------- 
References 
Abou-El-Sood,H., Kotb, A,Allam, A. (2015). “Exploring auditors’ perceptions of the usage 
and importance of audit information technology". International Journal of Auditing, 19(3), 252-266. 
AICPA (2002a). "Audit documentation. Statement of Auditing Standards." New York: American Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants. 
AICPA (2002b). "Consideration of fraud in financial statement audit. Statement of Auditing Standards." No. 99. 
New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 
AICPA (2002c). "Interim financial information. Statement of Auditing Standards" No. 100. New York: American 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 
AICPA ((2006)). "Risk assessment standards. Statement of Auditing Standards". No. 104–11. New York: 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 
Bierstaker, J., Janvrin, D. & Love,D. (2014) "What factors influence auditors' use of computer-assisted audit 
techniques?" Advances in Accounting, 30(1), 67-74. 
Clarke, R. (1988). "Information technology and dataveillance".Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 498-512. 
Cleveland, J.N. and Shore, L.M. (1992). "Self-and supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes and 
performance".Journal of applied Psychology, 77(4), 469. 
Craswell, A., Stokes, D.J.&Laughton, J. (2002). "Auditor independence and fee dependence".Journal of 
Accounting and Economics, 33(2), 253-275. 
Elliott, R. K. and Jacobson, P.D. (1987). "Audit technology: A heritage and a promise",Journal of Accountancy, 
163(5), 198-205. 
Hartono, J. (2012). "Adoption of information technology on small businesses: The role of environment, 
organizational and leader determinant." International Journal of Business, Humanities, and Technology, 2(4), 
60-66. 
Ismail, N.A. and Abidin, A.Z. (2009). "Perception towards the importance and knowledge of information 
technology among auditors in Malaysia".Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 1(4),61-69. 
Janvrin, D., Bierstaker, J. &Love,D. (2008). "An examination of audit information technology use and 
perceived importance".Accounting Horizons, 22(1), 1-21. 
Manson,S., McCartney, S., Sherer, M.& Wallace, W.A. (1998). "Audit Automation in the UK and the US: A 
Comparative Study".International Journal of Auditing, 2(3), 233-246. 
Porter, C. E. and Donthu. N. (2006). "Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes 
determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics".Journal of business 
research, 59(9), 999-1007. 
Sundgren, S. and Svanström, T. (2010). "Auditor-In-Charge Characteristics and Going Concern Reporting 
Behavior: Does number of assignments, age and client fee dependence matter?".Contemporary Accounting 
Research, 31(2), 531-550. 
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G.&Davis, F. (2003). "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a 
unified view".MIS quarterly, 27(3),425-478. 
----------------------------------