Digital Transformation and Perceived Audit Quality: The Roles of Professional Judgment and Skepticism among External Auditors in Turkmenistan
Open accessAbstract
Digital technologies are reshaping external audit procedures, but their relationship with audit quality depends on how auditors interpret technology-generated evidence and sustain professional skepticism. This study examines the associations among digital transformation, perceived audit quality, professional judgment, and professional skepticism in Turkmenistan, an under-researched Central Asian setting. A quantitative-dominant mixed-methods design combined survey responses from 187 accounting and audit professionals with semi-structured interviews involving 24 purposively selected participants. The survey model was estimated using partial least squares structural equation modeling with 5,000 bootstrap resamples, while interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. Digital transformation was positively associated with perceived audit quality (β = 0.412, p < 0.001), professional judgment (β = 0.367, p < 0.001), and professional skepticism (β = 0.298, p < 0.001). Professional skepticism and professional judgment were also positively associated with perceived audit quality. Indirect-effect tests indicated partial mediation through professional skepticism (β = 0.102, p < 0.001), professional judgment (β = 0.105, p < 0.001), and a serial pathway from professional skepticism to professional judgment (β = 0.036, p = 0.008). Interview evidence converged with the quantitative results by showing that analytics and automation improved coverage and efficiency while shifting, rather than replacing, human judgment. The findings suggest that technology investment is most likely to improve perceived audit quality when it is accompanied by training, data-governance controls, and institutional support for skeptical inquiry. Because the study is cross-sectional and relies primarily on self-reported perceptions, the results should not be interpreted as causal evidence of objectively measured audit quality
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Abdallah, B., Ghanem, M., & Mahboub, R. (2024). Impact of personal, task, and environmental factors on auditor's judgment and decision-making: Evidence from Lebanese certified public accountants. International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, 19(2), 284-300. https://doi.org/10.33094/ijaefa.v19i2.1717 · DOI
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- Hurtt, R. K. (2010). Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.149 International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2020). Non-authoritative support material: Using automated tools and techniques in performing audit procedures. International Federation of Accountants. · DOI
- Libby, R., & Luft, J. (1993). Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(5), 425-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361- 3682(93)90040-D Nelson, M. W. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.1 · DOI
- Sulaiman, N. A., Yasin, F. M., & Muhamad, R. (2018). Perspectives of audit quality: An analysis. Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives, 11(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.22452/AJAP.vol11no1. · DOI
- Tran, T. Q., & Anh, H. T. (2021). Perception of digital transformation effect on audit quality: The case of Vietnam. Journal of International Economics and Management, 21(3), 91-107. https://doi.org/10.38203/jiem.021. · DOI
Cited by
Still being checked.
- Authors
- Durdyyev, M., & Yusuvop, R.
- Affiliations
- Turkmen State Institute of Economics and Management (TM)
- Venue
- Journal of Business Innovation and Accounting Research
- Published
- 2026-07-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 114-126
- ISSN
- 3031-6618 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7168536030
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Business Innovation and Accounting Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Robotic Process Automation Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Governance and Financial Management
- Keywords
- digital transformation, audit quality, professional judgment, professional skepticism, external auditors, audit technology, audit analytics, audit automation, Turkmenistan, data governance, auditor training
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
