CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 138Technology Adoption and User BehaviourDecision Support System ApplicationsRobotic Process Automation Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining the adoption of computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: Cases of generalized audit software use by internal auditors

Mahzan, Nurmazilah, Lymer, Andy·2014·Managerial Auditing Journal
DOI 10.1108/maj-05-2013-0877
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: – The use of computer-assisted audit techniques and tools (CAATTs) is a part of many professionally recommended audit procedures. This paper aims to argue that obtaining a better understanding of the factors underlying successful CAATTs adoptions would be helpful to aid wider development of these technologies in internal audit functions. Design/methodology/approach: – To help develop the understanding of the factors that lead to successful adoption of GAS, this paper uses current theories that are seeking to better explain the various elements that constitute IT adoption processes. In particular, it makes use the “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology” (UTAUT). UTAUT is used to structure the analysis of ten semi-structured, qualitative, interviews of key decision-makers in adoptions of CAATTS in internal audit functions in exploring the key factors that drove the successful adoption of these IT technologies. The most widely used CAATTs tools available to internal auditors is currently GAS. This study specifically focuses on GAS tools. Findings: – This paper explores the successful adoption of GAS in ten cases to draw out the general factors that appear to be essential elements that lead to successful adoptions. From this basis, the paper proposes an initial model, built on existing theories of IT adoption more generally, as a theoretical basis for GAS adoption by decision-makers in an internal audit setting to better understand what may be essential factors to their adoption decisions to be likewise successful. Results suggest that two constructs from UTAUT (performance expectancy and facilitating conditions) appear to be particularly important factors influencing successful adoptions of GAS in this domain. However, the UTAUT constructs of social influence and effort expectancy are not found by this study to be as important in this specific IT adoption domain. UTAUT also proposes four moderating factors that influence the constructs. This paper explores two of these moderators – experience and voluntariness – and shows that both are keys to the constructs application to this domain. Originality/value: – The paper examines the motivation for CAATTs adoption by internal auditors using the UTAUT framework commonly used in information system research but not so to date in this domain where there is professional guidance suggesting wider use of technology should be made compared to actual usage.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/maj-05-2013-0877

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Abu Shanab, E. and Pearson, J.M. (2007), “Internet banking in Jordan: the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) perspective”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 78-97. · DOI
  2. Aidi, A. and Kent, S. (2013), “The utilisation of generalised audit software (GAS) by external auditors”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 88-113.
  3. Anderson, J.E. and Schwager, P.H. (2004), “SME adoption of wireless LAN technology: applying the UTAUT model”, Proceedings of Seventh Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems (SAIS), USA.
  4. Bedard, J.C. and Graham, L.E. (2002), “The effects of decision aid orientation on risk factor identification and audit test planning”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 39-56. · DOI
  5. Bedard, J.C. , Jackson, C. , Ettredge, M.L. and Johnstone, M.K. (2003), “The effect of training on auditors' acceptance of an electronic work system”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 227-250. · DOI
  6. Bhattacherjee, A. (2000), “Acceptance of e-commerce services: the case of electronic brokerages”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 411-420. · DOI
  7. Braun, R.L. and Davis, H.E. (2003), “Computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: analysis and perspectives”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 725-731. · DOI
  8. Curtis, M.B. and Payne, E.A. (2008), “An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 104-121. · DOI
  9. Davies, F.D. and Venkatesh, V. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Debreceny, R. , Lee, S. , Neo, W. and Toh, J.S. (2005), “Employing generalized audit software in the financial services sector”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 605-619. · DOI
  11. Dowling, C.S. and Leech, S. (2007), “Audit support systems and decision aids: current practice and opportunities for future research”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 92-116. · DOI
  12. Gonzalez, G.C. , Sharma, P.N. and Galletta, D.F. (2012), “The antecedents of the use of continuous auditing in the internal auditing context”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 248-262. · DOI
  13. Grand, C.L. (2001a), Use of Computer-Assisted Audit Tools and Technique (CAATTs) Part 1, Vol. 4, IT Audit, The Institute of Internal Auditor, October 1, available at: www.theiia.org/itaudit/index.cfm?fuseaction=forum&fid=320.
  14. Grand, C.L. (2001b), Use of Computer-Assisted Audit Tools and Technique (CAATTs) Part 2, Vol. 4, IT Audit, The Institute of Internal Auditor, October 15, available at: www.theiia.org/itaudit/index.cfm?fuseaction=forum&fid=380.
  15. Gray, G.L. (2006), “An array of technology tools: a broad mix of spreadsheet and audit-specific products enables auditors to take on many different tasks, according to the 2006 internal auditor software survey”, Internal Auditor, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 56-62.
  16. Hall, J. (2012), Information Technology Auditing, International edition, 3rd ed., Cengage, Mason, OH.
  17. Hennington, A.H. and Janz, B.D. (2007), “Information systems and healthcare XVI: physician adoption of electronic medical records: applying the UTAUT model in a healthcare context”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 60-80. · DOI
  18. Huang, S.-M. , Hung, Y.-C. and Tsao, H.-H. (2008), “Examining the determinants of computer-assisted audits techniques acceptance from internal auditors viewpoints”, International Journal of Services and Standards, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 377-392. · DOI
  19. Hudson, M.E. (1998), “CAATTs and compliance”, Internal Auditor, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 25-27.
  20. Javnrin, D.J.B. , Bierstaker, J. and Lowe, J.L. (2008), “An examination of audit information technology use and perceived importance”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 22, pp. 1-21. · DOI
  21. Karahanna, E. , Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999), “IT adoption across time”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 183-213. · DOI
  22. Kim, H.J. , Mannino, M. and Nieschwietz, R.J. (2009), “Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: impact of technology features and complexity”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 214-228. · DOI
  23. Neuron, B. (2003), “SAS 94: issues and opportunities”, InfoTech Update, Vol. 12 No. 1.
  24. Paukowits, F. (2000), “Bridging CAATTS and risk”, Internal Auditor, Vol. 57 No. 2, p. -.
  25. Pogrob, K.R. and Isenberg, G. (1999), “Accountants corner: auditing in a paperless society”, The Secured Lender, Vol. 55 No. 7, p. -.
  26. Rahim, M. (2008), “Identifying factors affecting acceptance of e-procurement systems: an initial qualitative study at an Australian City Council”, Communications of IBIMA, Vol. 3, pp. 17-78.
  27. Ramamoorthi, W. (2004), The Pervasive Impact of Information Technology on Internal Auditing, Chapter 9, Institute of Internal Auditors Inc., Altamonte Springs, FL.
  28. Salierno, D. (2001), “Tools of the trade”, The Internal Auditor, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 32-34.
  29. Sieber, S. , Valor, J. and Miralles, F. (2005), “CIO herds and user gangs in the adoption of open source software”, IESE working paper series. · DOI
  30. Singleton, T. and Flesher, D.L. (2003), “A 25 years retrospective on the IIA's SAC project”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-53. · DOI
  31. Stoel, D. , Havelka, D. and Merhout, J.W. (2012), “An analysis of attributes that impact information technology audit quality: a study of IT and financial audit practitioners”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 60-79. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Succi, M.J. and Walter, Z.D. (1999), “Theory of user acceptance of information technologies: an examination of health care professionals”, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1-7. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Venkatesh, V. , Morris, M. , Davis, G. and Davis, F. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Davis, F.D. , Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35, pp. 982-1002. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Paukowits, F. (1998), “Mainstreaming CAATTS”, Internal Auditor, Vol. 55 No. 1, p. -.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mahzan, N., & Lymer, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Malaya (MY)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
ORCID
Lymer, Andy
Venue
Managerial Auditing Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2014-04-29
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
327-349
ISSN
0268-6902 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/maj-05-2013-0877
OpenAlex
W1582538398
Cited by
138
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
12.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Managerial Auditing Journal (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Robotic Process Automation Applications
Keywords
computer-assisted audit techniques, internal audit, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, generalized audit software, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, moderators, audit technology adoption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review