Audit opinion research: overview and research agenda

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to trace the evolution of audit opinion research and identify research gaps that require the future investigation. Data was collected from Scopus and Dimension sources and then filtered by criteria so that the total final data analyzed bibliometrically was 709 over the last ten-year observation period. The research method is carried out in two stages, namely bibliometric analysis and content analysis on relevant articles. This study finds that the majority of audit opinion research have examined the topics of audit quality, types of audit opinions, business continuity, financial ratios, shopping opinions, earning management, audit tenure, and audit fees. Many audit opinion studies have employed quantitative methods, while a small number have used qualitative research methods. Furthermore, previous audit opinion studies have focused on corporate research, especially companies listed in the stock exchange market. Audit opinion research have also been explored in the local government sector, while they, in the relation to education, health, and sharia institutions still need to be improved. This research documents valuable research insights to future research agendas. In addition, the results revealed flaws in the audit opinion study of untouched objects.

Keywords:

• Audit opinion
• bibliometrics
• audit
• research agenda

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Collins Ntim, University of Southampton, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

JEL CLASSIFICATION:

• M42; M49

1. Introduction

New ideas found in research become a challenge for researchers, academics, or professional practitioners. On the other hand, the research process demands the discovery of unique new things providing contributions to society. Many factors are demanded in conducting research including government direction, working conditions, looking for novelty, the desire to understand cause and effect, the idea of social awakening, and others. Therefore, researchers are expected to have sensitivity to the emerging phenomena and the surrounding critical problems and understand information on the development of topics. Efforts to update the development of information on topics in the field studied can enrich knowledge about previous research literature reviews (Kothari, 2004). It implies the more scientific literature available, the more complex the challenges in finding novelty for future researchers (Jannah & Widuri, 2022). Scholars need to map previous research to find new ideas on a research topic. In addition, extensive literature surveys can also be procedural steps in the research process, as can audit opinion research (Shraddha et al., 2013). Thus, this study aims to determine the development of research on the state of audit opinions and find topics that still need further study from existing scientific literature, as well as the contribution of new ideas to the theme of audit opinions.

Audit research is one of types of research in accounting, and audit opinion is one of its scopes (Chiu et al., 2019. Research motives in accounting, auditing, and accountability have been widely applied. However, many other elements need to be clarified. Accounting research focuses more on the application of accounting science (Hendri et al., 2020; Secinaro et al., 2021). Audit opinion research is familiar in audit research. Prior studies generally take audit opinion issues related to other topics, such as going concern audit opinions (Defond et al., 2016; Gallizo & Saladrigues, 2016), financial reporting quality (Abad et al., 2017; Martínez & Meca, 2014), unqualified audit opinions (Pamungkas et al., 2018), and audit decision-making opinions (Tsipouridou & Spathis, 2014; Zhang et al., 2016) or other topics.

It is inevitable that previous studies still have limitations, so more specific audit opinions must be scrutinized. Moreover, research references regarding audit opinions continue to emerge and become more complex, so the urgency of audit opinion research will continue to be needed in the inspection as long as the audit opinion becomes the final result in the implementation of the audit. Audit opinion is the most essential final part of the audit process, packaged as an audit report. It provides an overview of the fairness of financial statements where the stakeholder layer of an entity can consider and has implications for the survival of the entity. This is related to stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory. In stakeholder theory, three paths are found related to stakeholders: firstly, in order to maximize the objectives of the entity, the interests of stakeholders must be considered (instrumental stakeholders); secondly, it is about the interaction between managers, companies, and stakeholders; and thirdly. what managers should do to stakeholders (Freeman, 2015). Audit opinions are regarded as reliable information for all stakeholders regarding the entity’s activities and can be considered in making decisions. The theory of legitimacy provides the assumption that legitimacy is based on relevant public perceptions and that legitimacy is the basis for an organization to survive. If it is associated with audit opinions, the final results of auditing are believed by the public, including in the consideration of going concern of an organization based on the fairness of assertions from management.(Deegan, 2019).

It is essential to understand that an audit opinion is only possible based on providing an opinion on the fairness of the audited financial statements. Therefore, research on audit opinions in terms of factors and their implications in the corporate or public sector is still needed to develop an audit of the fairness of finanacial statements. In addition, several results of research agree that there is a relationship between audit opinions and audit quality (Abadi et al., 2019; Averio, 2021; Cahyono, 2014; Imen & Anis, 2021), Audit quality is also still being explored and studied regarding agreement with the recognition of qualified audits and one of methods used to search for literature reviews is through bibliometric analysis.

A bibliometric analysis of audit opinions is used in this study in order to examine further audit opinion topics with unique characteristics which are different from previous studies. Through bibliometric analysis, we can obtain a macro description of a large amount of scientific literature (van Nunen et al., 2018). As a lot of subjectivity is involved, determining the scientific influence of a source is a challenging process (Pizzi et al., 2021). One of steps in bibliometric analysisis by determining current research trends and gaps for future research (Abdian et al., 2023). This is also undertaken to avoid the same research topics as previous researchers have been found. The results obtained in bibliometric analysis can be considered in determining which audit opinion research topic ares needed next. Bibliometric analysis is able to provide an understanding of research developments and directions towards specific key topics within a field of research (Wang et al., 2014). The novelty of research can then cover several things, for example, the novelty of the theme or topic of study, the novelty of the paradigm and the methodology or approach and technique of analysis, as well as the novelty of the theory and the basis for assessing the problem under study (Sherliani, 2021).

2. Audit opinion

Audit opinions are well known to the public, especially at the level of society familiar with auditing both in the government and private sectors, because audit opinions are a communication tool between users of financial information. In addition, audit opinions are an essential responsibility of the accounting profession, so audit opinions must be expressed and explain the fairness or conformity of audited financial statements to generally accepted accounting principles. Audit opinion also become the purpose of carrying out systematic audits performed by auditors, especially in the examination of financial statements. Audit opinion is also called the final result of an audit. However, it should be understood that audit opinions can only arise with consideration at each stage of the audit process, which must be set out in the audit working paper. An audit opinion is a result observed directly under the auditor’s control. Audit opinions are formulated based on detailed and complex procedures involving assessing client onboarding and retention decisions, deepening the client’s business, examining internal controls (Chen et al., 2017), obtaining substantive evidence regarding submitted accounts, and gathering results in opinion formation (Habib, 2013). In essence, the audit opinion is the primary information from the results of an audit or the conclusion of the audit implementation (Prayanthi, 2017).

According to Audit Standard No. 700, audit opinions are divided into several types: unqualified, qualified, modified unqualified, adverse and disclaimer opinions (Hu et al., 2017; Maffei et al., 2020; Nguyen & Trinh, 2020). Unqualified opinion is the audit opinion most expected by the auditee, which means there is no severe misstatement in the presentation of financial accounts. This opinion is recognized as the safest opinion. Modified unqualified opinions are ranked after unqualified fair opinions. Unqualified opinions are also called ‘favorable opinions’ (Hu et al., 2017). In addition, adverse opinions and disclaimers are also called going concern opinions, meaning that the financial statements affirmed by the auditee contain material and severe misstatements (Moalla & Baili, 2019). Qualified opinions are usually issued due to uncertainty in asset value, limited coverage, and financial difficulties/survival issues (Hu et al., 2017). The disclaimer contains the most severe audit issues, or even the worst audit opinions, prohibiting reliance on audited financial accounts for decision-making (Malau et al., 2019).

Audit opinions are dependent and trusted by users of financial statements, so consistency of assessment is essential to be carried out by experts and professionals (Maffei et al., 2020). Business people want to obtain an unqualified audit opinion to benefit from this. For example, unqualified opinion helps business production with easy access to facilities to obtain loans from banks (Nguyen & Trinh, 2020). In general, the majority of public companies obtain an unqualified audit opinion (Minutti-Meza, 2021). However, auditors must provide a business continuity opinion if major doubts are found regarding business continuity. Type I or type II errors may arise due to mistakes made in expressing opinions. The auditor will lose the auditee if the type I error is that the auditor gives the wrong going concern opinion, and the auditee does not fail. However, it is riskier if a type II error occurs—if the auditor fails to provide a business continuity opinion to the auditee filing for bankruptcy. Litigation costs and reputational damage may arise as a result of this (Hardies et al., 2016).

3. Method

3.1. Bibliometric analysis and literature review

Bibliometric analysis techniques were used in this study. Statistical examination of the quantity of publications and citations is a component of bibliometric analysis (Kumar et al., 2020). Bibliometric analysis is a popular method used to explore and analyze informational data to uncover the evolution of specific focus areas (Donthu et al., 2021). Bibliometrics is used to find research trends on a particular topic that show research structures and gaps (Abbas & Mahsen Abdulrahman, 2023), and its methods can be applied to assess research performance and patterns according to authors, journals, countries, or institutions (Wei & Yang, 2015). We also apply the literature review method to explore the content of audit opinion articles. A literature review is an excellent way to uncover a focus that requires more in-depth research (Snyder, 2019). A literature review is referred to as secondary research. More information and different views or lack of consensus on a topic make a literature review necessary (Ferrari, 2015).

3.2. Data selection

The initial stage in conducting this research is selecting data and data sources. This is the main thing to do in bibliometric research to find the needed material. This research data was a research article that discusses audit opinions. The data sources we use were Scopus and Dimension. Scopus is a significant source of scientific publications recognized as reputable indices. In addition, articles with audit opinions not indexed by Scopus may also be worth contributing to, so we also use Dimension as a source for dynamic articles. Dimension combined connected publication data with a diverse research ecosystem and a search channel for research reference sources.

3.3. Data search criteria

In setting data criteria, we used the search of keywords at the source. An essential step in gathering sources was choosing primary keywords (Secinaro et al., 2021). The data search criteria used in this study are;

1. The main keywords used in Scopus sources were (‘audit opinion,’ ‘qualified opinion,’ OR ‘unqualified opinion’ OR ‘adverse opinion’ OR ‘disclaimer opinion’ OR ‘disclaimer of opinion AND (LIMIT-TO (OA, ‘all’)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2023) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2015) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2014) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, ‘ar’)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, ‘spark plugs’)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, ‘English’)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRYPE,’j’)).

2. The keywords used in Dimension’s search sources were not much different: (‘Audit Opinion,’ OR ‘Qualified Opinion,’ OR ‘Unqualified Opinion,’ OR ‘Adverse Opinion’ OR ‘Disclaimer Opinion’ OR ‘Disclaimer of Opinion,’ 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or 2021 or 2022 or 2023, 3501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, Article).

3.4. Data selection process

Data selection was also carried out as a follow-up to criteria previously selected automatically through keywords but it needed to be rechecked manually by researchers to assess the suitability of the required audit opinion criteria. For example, eliminating duplicate data, abstract availability, and completeness of article content, as well as the language used in writing and reading more carefully to avoid keyword typing errors.

3.5. Tools used

The next step was data analysis through VOSviewer. VOSViewer could present maps of analysis results using VOS mapping techniques and multidimensional scale techniques (Haidar, 2023). Some of the analyses in VosViewer include Co-Authorship, Fractional Counting, Co-occurrence, Document-based Citation Analysis, Bibliographic Coupling Analysis based on Document, Cited reference-based Co-Citation Analysis, and creation maps (Sidiq, 2019). This study focuseds on term analysis, co-authoring analysis, citation analysis, and bibliographic merging analysis. Then, we delved into the contents of our literature review article with data coding, annotations, and visualizations.

3.6. Data analysis process

In general, this research was carried out with a three-step approach as proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) and adopted by Alatawi et al. (2023), Alhossini et al. (2021), Nguyen et al. (2020); firstly sources are identified and ensured to establish the theme of ‘audit opinion’; secondly keywords were used as search identification criteria; Thirdly, the sample article study was analyzed by reading it in full. In detail, the workflow of conducting research began with searching for articles about audit opinions using search criteria: article documents with the theme of audit opinions, limitations on the last ten years, using business and accounting area categories according to the range of disciplines covered, and (Lu et al., 2022) limited to articles presented in English. Furthermore, the selection of article documents was collected through manual checking, and the selected data was then analyzed bibliometrically. Furthermore, to support the conclusions obtained, further analysis of the article’s content has been considered most relevant to the findings of this study; at this stage, a manual review was carried out by containing information about descriptive information, research approaches, and argumentation of sample articles. Here is the Prism research workflow (Scheme 1), which illustrates the selection phase process of reviewed articles (Alhossini et al., 2021).

Scheme 1. Research workflow prism.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive analysis

4.1.1. Publication trends

The publication trend regarding audit opinion research has attracted much interest in the observation period of the last ten years. Data in this bibliometric research was obtained from two publication sources: Scopus and Dimension. The trends displayed from both sources have different trend charts, as shown in Graph 1.

Graph 1. Scopus Publication Trends and Audit Opinion Research Dimensions.

The blue graph is a trend graph of audit opinion research publications sourced from Scopus fluctuated from 2014 to 2022. A significant surge in Scopus audit opinion research publications was shown in 2020. The red graph is a trend of audit opinion research publications sourced from the source dimension. The graph shows that audit opinion research was conducted and published and will continue to increase until 2022. As for 2023, an estimation still needs to be made in Scopus sources or dimensions because they are in the current year. By seeing the difference between the two graphs, the growth of audit opinion research is still quite popular and widely carried out. However, audit opinion research indexed in Scopus differs from the growth of audit opinion research, where it increases yearly, especially in the last five years.

4.1.2. Co-occurrence analysis

Co-occurrence analysis demonstrates the network of terms associated with audit opinions in abstracts and article titles. Co-occurrence shows the relationship between the audit opinion and the terms in the examined article. Figure 1 depicts that the results of the co-occurrence analysis show that the keyword ‘audit opinion’ in the previous study is most often associated with ‘audit quality,’ ‘audit report,’ ‘local government,’ ‘financial reporting,’ ‘Company’ transparency’ and ‘audit cost’ then there are also small dots indicating terms that are still not highlighted in audit opinion research, these other terms can be seen in more detail in Figure 1 below;

Figure 1. Co-occurrence with Network visualization.

Research on audit opinions has been carried out and is associated with many aspects, for example, by looking at the terms in Figure 1. In this case, the author illustrates that many studies on audit opinions conducted so far are more related to financial performance reporting, which is associated with financial statements or audit quality in the business world.

4.1.3. Term co-occurrence

Term Co-Occurrence analysis also provides information on the network of terms in the analyzed article. However, it was carried out on the entire text of the article data to form a mapping of the contained term network. In this analysis, we can also observe the most frequently used terms and terms rarely used or associated with audit opinion research. The results of the Term Co-Occurrence analysis also show the division of clusters that appear in audit opinion research. Details of the division of clusters formed can be seen in Figure 2 below;

Figure 2. ‘Opinion’ Network visualization connection.

Figure 2 above shows the network formed in the cluster division contained explicitly in the connection term ‘opinion.’ Five different cluster colors are displayed, namely red, green, blue, yellow, and purple. Remember that these clusters are associated with the term ‘Opinion.’ The figure shows three countries, where audit opinion research has been conducted. Indonesia is included in the green cluster that most associate audit opinions with financial statements, but it does not link fraud to financial performance. Vietnam is in the red cluster. In this cluster, many audit opinions are associated with going concern audit opinions. However, research on audit opinions related to regulators still lacks. The blue cluster shows that audit opinion research is also conducted in China. The yellow cluster indicates that ‘quality’ is most strongly associated with the audit opinion, and the purple cluster is shown as the smallest cluster and least associated with the audit opinion with ‘gender.’

Although color groups indicate differences, there may be a relationship between groups. Then, although only three countries are mentioned in relation to the term ‘opinion’ above, it does not mean that no other countries examine audit opinions other than these three countries. It is just that the application is relatively minor compared to the countries shown in Figure 2. The analysis is also limited to articles cited at least once, whereas most audit opinion articles have no citations.

4.1.4. Co-authorship analysis

Research on audit opinions has been conducted in several countries, and even authors between countries have collaborated. The co-authorship analysis shown in Figure 3 results from an analysis with country as the unit of analysis. We can see that collaborative research articles on this audit opinion have been conducted between Indonesia and Australia, as well as between Australian authors and America and Hong Kong. In addition, American authors have also cooperated with Jordanian authors, Jordan has also conducted audit opinion research cooperation with authors in Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia has also conducted collaborative audit opinion research with the United Kingdom. In this analysis, other countries, such as Turkey, Spain, Iran, South Korea, New Zealand, Belgium, Poland, Portugal, and Romania, have conducted audit opinion research but have never cooperated with other countries.

Figure 3. Co-authorship with density visualization.

Figure 4. Citation with overlay visualization.

A co-authorship network shows the development of science about auditing, especially audit opinions providing substantive contributions to audit opinions, both general and unique contributions. Figure 3 shows that audit opinion research collaboration still lacks.

4.1.5. Citation analysis

Citation analysis is carried out to see the citation of written articles regarding published audit opinions. Using author citations means that the article will be a reference for research in the next period. The reference can be used because the findings of previous research have been approved or confirmed by subsequent researchers or can also be included as comparison material displayed with expressions of differences in findings obtained. Figure 4 provides information that most citations to audit opinion research articles use article references written by Mark Defond, an American researcher who has written many articles on auditing and accounting.

The figure above also depicts the development of audit opinion research citations in the last ten years. This shows that the most cited articles today are still from 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The greater the number of citations, the greater the usefulness of an article (Aulianto et al., 2019).

4.1.6. Co-Citation analysis

This analysis is used to see how the network is formed from citations related to audit opinion articles. This network also forms an audit opinion research cluster is characterized by various colors of interrelated network threads, as shown in Figure 5 below;

Figure 5. Co-Citation with Network visualization.

4.1.7. Bibliographic coupling

In line with the results of the previous citation analysis, it can be described in Figure 6 that most citations came from Mark Defon’s articles both in 2017 and 2016. It can also show that the purple and green network threads are marks of articles whose year of publication is below. In 2020 or before 2020, some were more dominant. This is natural because these articles have been around for a long time, so the new research mainly refers to previous research.

Figure 6. Bibliography Coupling with Overlay Visualization.

4.2. Discussion

In this section, we present themes or various problems discussed in the literature review and examples of audit opinion articles in our research (Figure 7). From literature reviews conducted in the audit opinion research area in the last ten years, more research has been conducted on corporate or business-based companies than government sector research areas. Audit opinion research has also been widely associated with variables related to this in quantitative research. In addition, audit opinion research is also discussed using a qualitative approach, although it is less popular than quantitative methods. In essence, audit opinions can be formulated through three things: the internal control system (Defond & Lennox, 2017; Newton et al., 2016; Pamungkas et al., 2018), compliance with laws and regulations (Muhtar et al., 2020; Ningsih, 2016; Pamungkas et al., 2018), and the conformity of the presentation of financial statements with generally accepted standards (Gill de Albornoz Noguer & Rusanescu, 2018; Pamungkas et al., 2018)

Figure 7. Audit opinion research conceptual framework.

Audit quality is a matter that is widely discussed in audit research. Audit quality indicates whether or not the audit conducted by the auditor is good. According to Public Accountant Professional Standards, an examination is qualified if it meets the provisions or standards, including issuing opinions. When an auditor issues an opinion, it must be supported by sufficient audit evidence. It is essential to understand that a reasonable audit opinion does not necessarily indicate that the quality of the audit could be better. Audit opinions are not a commodity; a superior or poor audit team can be found in any company, whether large or medium-sized. In essence, the audit company must implement independence, and the audit team must have high objectivity and professional skepticism (Kral, 2016). Going concern audit opinions are not significantly influenced by partial audit quality (Loretha, 2022). The auditor plays a vital role in conducting an audit of financial statements, and in this regard, producing a suitable and superior audit opinion requires the auditor’s professional accuracy and adherence to audit evidence (Febriansyah & Oktaviana, 2022). Auditing studies also emphasize unqualified and qualified opinions.

Previous audit opinion research also discussed this type of audit opinion a lot. For example, research on modified unqualified audit opinions by Sultanoglu et al. (2018) found that a company will obtain a modified audit opinion when facing financial difficulties or times of crisis but not in periods of global financial crisis; auditors show a tendency to provide modified audit opinions in domestic periods. Financial distress has a significant and detrimental impact on the audit opinion, followed by an explanatory paragraph (Widiatami et al., 2020). While research on unqualified audit opinions is rarely associated with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the findings are that companies involved in implementing CSR are more likely to obtain unqualified opinions on their financial statements, companies benefit from CSR activities, and there are non-standard effects. The linear relationship between CSR and obtaining an unqualified audit opinion makes it clear that companies must balance CSR costs and benefits (Nguyen & Trinh, 2020). In addition, previous audit opinion research also discusses going concern audit opinions.

An audit opinion with assurance regarding a company’s ability to sustain viability after evaluation is known as a ‘going concern’ opinion (Brunelli et al. (2021; Simamora & Hendarjatno, 2019; Triani et al., 2017). Going Concern’s research applied the Event Study methodology and found results differed from similar prior studies e. The findings explain that the modification of the going concern causes adverse reactions. This difference occurs because this study was conducted in Italywith different market environment characteristics. Governance mechanisms and accounting culture in which minority investors oppose ownership correspond to type II agency issues. Acceptance of business continuity modification opinions is positively related to client bankruptcy and auditor replacement. So far, the revised opinion of Big 4 Public Accountants puts clients at a manageable risk than opinions from other Public Accountants (Svanberg & Öhman, 2014). Gender and chief financial officer are also related to business continuity opinions. Companies with a new CFO are more likely to receive a business continuity opinion because of the auditor’s professional distrust of the new executive. However, no significant association was related to gender.; This contrasts previous studies (Zaher, 2015).

Financial ratios were widely discussed in previous studies as an indicator of obtaining audit opinions. One of the determining factors of going concern audit opinion decisions is client financial characteristics such as profitability (Tsipouridou & Spathis, 2014), whereas liquidity ratios are shown not to influence going concern audit opinions (Simamora & Hendarjatno, 2019). This financial ratio is also widely used by planning management in audit opinion research.

Earning Management is generally performed by companies to increase stock prices. The decline in stock price results from a modification of the audit opinion (Gul et al., 2019). Modified audit opinions have a positive relationship with goodwill impairment and are driven by earning management risk (He et al., 2021). In addition, profit management significantly affects audit opinions negatively; However, the audit committee’s relationship with audit opinion is not mediated by earning management (Juniarti et al., 2022). In contrast to research Tsipouridou & Spathis (2014) finding that audit opinions are not related to earnings management.

Opinion Shopping has also become a problematic topic about audits  discussed widely and becomes a topic of discussion, especially in audit supervision. The reason is that opinion shopping has become a phenomenon where the auditee obtains an audit opinion that benefits him in a certain way. However, the quality is relatively low (Zhang et al., 2022). Opinion Shopping influences going concern audit opinions (Simamora & Hendarjatno, 2019). Internal control opinion spending occurs in a competitive audit market. When the audited party dismisses the auditor, there is a greater chance of causing opinion spending, especially if the dismissal is made at the end of the reporting period (Newton et al., 2016).

Audit tenure is when external auditors performwork assignments on an audit until the final results provide independent verification of the auditee. It is further explained that auditors with long tenure have more experience and are familiar with auditees, so they can further develop effective and efficient audit procedures to detect affirmed reports (Baatwah, 2016). Audit tenure does not affect the going concern audit opinion (Simamora & Hendarjatno, 2019; Zhang et al., 2016).

Another topic included in audit opinion research is Audit Costs with mixed results. Audit costs have less effects on the accuracy of providing audit opinions. The audit company is entitled to an audit fee as compensation for its work. The amount of fee is generally based on the size and risk of the auditee (Nursito & Astuti, 2017; Read, 2015). If this is not in line, this can interfere with the independence or quality of the report provided by the auditor. However, it is also a subject of discussion when the auditee overpays for non-audit services, resulting in a lack of auditor independence (Shakhatreh et al., 2020).

5. Audit opinion research agenda

Based on the findings of the analysis that has been conducted, it is understood that most previous audit opinion studies discuss their relationship with audit quality, financial reporting, audit quality, and audit opinion. Going concern, fair opinion with exceptions, fair opinion without exception, linkage to profit management or financial ratios, and other topics can be seen again in Figure 1 and Figure 2. One of studies on audit opinions conducted on (Pamungkas et al., 2018) 182 financial statements of city governments in Indonesia finds that audits also consider the internal control system, compliance with laws and regulations, and the conformity of the presentation of financial statements with Financial Accounting Standards.

Some studies discuss factors regarding audit opinions to obtain different findings, including opinion shopping variables and leverage affect going concern audit opinions, however, they are not influenced by audit client tenure variables, audit lag, and liquidity ratios. Conversely, the research explains that audit tenure variables (Dianto & Putri, 2021; Simamora & Hendarjatno, 2019), financial condition, audit quality, and leverage do not significantly influence going concern audit opinions. In addition, finding that financial conditions characterized by financial ratios such as return Gallizo & Saladrigues (2016) on assets (ROA), short-term debt ratios, current ratios (CR), liquidity ratios, size, and history of losses, provide an explanation that when an entity experiences a declining financial condition and has a history of losses, it provides the possibility for the entity to obtain a going concern audit opinion. Financial distress also has a positive relationship with the modification of audit opinions (Sultanoglu et al., 2018). The researchers also examined audit concerns and opinions during the past COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that going concern audit opinions were significantly positively affected by the COVID-19 financial crisis, but the tenure of audit clients, litigation risk, and the size of public accounting still exerted a moderation influence (Hidayat, 2022).

Research on qualified opinios was also conducted (Edmonds et al., 2020) finding results consistent with regional bond market participants and providing opinions for district and local governments with qualified/adverse audit opinions for both primary market issuance and secondary trading. It was further explained that the results showed that regional development investors assessed the information content of independent audit reports. Research on modified unqualified audit opinions was also associated with a decrease in goodwill, which was revealed by He et al. (2021) findings. First, the goodwill impairment rate increases the likelihood of receiving a modified opinion. Second, profit management risk is the primary driver of the observed positive relationship between declining goodwill and modified audit opinions. Third, there is no mismatch between the auditor and the client, and this positive relationship is stronger when the auditor is an industry expert. Fourth, the goodwill impairment rate is more critical to auditors than its existence.

The results of the study Kral (2016) provide five thoughts to the audit committee and Financial Officer in order to obtain added value in the audit process first, and an adequate understanding of the external audit world, ask many questions, understand the internal audit function, and unimportant considerations, and audit improvement plans. Research into audit opinions related to audit quality was also conducted Gul et al. (2019) and it found that stock declines occur when partner quality is low. This shows that capital markets strongly consider the identification of audit partners. Therefore, the identity of a particular engagement partner is disclosed through the stock market, dan resulting in the increase of quality of audits and accountability.

Audit opinion research has continued to evolve in the last ten years, including during the pandemic period of 2019-2021. The goal of audit opinion research throughout the observation of this study is more on financial reporting audit opinions, going concern audits, unqualified and qualified opinions, and audit quality. y Most of them use quantitative methods, although some use qualitative research methods. Audit opinion research in previous studies have focused on corporate research…

6. Conclusions and limitations

Studies with respect to audit opinion in the last ten years has fluctuated. areMost are quoted from Defond research written in 2016 and 2017. They have also developed in various countries. Some authors have collaborated on audit opinion research between different countries. It has been closely related to topics such as audit quality, unqualified and qualified opinions, going concern opinions, financial ratios, opinion shopping, earnings management, tenure audits, and audit fees. The vast majority of topics have employed quantitative approaches. As a suggestion, in terms of making research, audit opinion in the public sectoris still untouched. Therefore, we can also consider qualitative research methods The finding of this study can also complement the gap in differences ifound by previous researchers.

Through this research, the lack of audit opinion research can be reviewed in the future study. The focus of research that seems narrow can be developed following the community’s needs for research both from the problems faced and the application of audit opinion research on untouched objects. The development of methods in conducting audit opinion research is also suggested for future study.

Author’s contributions

Authors 1, 2, 3, and 4 conceptualized and designed the study, then author 1 analyzed and interpreted the data and continued with the preparation of papers. Later, authors 2,3, and 4 revised it critically for intellectual content. Ultimately, all authors agree and approve and are responsible for all aspects of this work.

Disclosure statement

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement

Raw data is generated in Scopus and Dimension. Data obtained supporting the findings of this study are available from correspondent author Nurhidayah upon request.

Additional information

Funding

We acknowledge the support funding for research, authorship and publication of this article from Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) and Pusat Layanan Pembiayaan Pendidikan kemdikbudristek Beasiswa Pendidikan Indonesia (BPI).

Notes on contributors

Nurhidayah Nurhidayah

Nurhidayah Nurhidayah is a PhD student at the Accounting Department Universitas Brawijaya, who is also a lecturer at the Universitas Sulawesi Barat.

Made Sudarma

Made Sudarma is a Professor at the Accounting Department Universitas Brawijaya.

Ali Djamhuri

Ali Djamhuri is a Associate Professor at the Accounting Department of Universitas Brawijaya.

Sari Atmini

Sari Atmini is a Lecturer and also Secretary of the Accounting Department Universitas Brawijaya.