1 s2.0 S1467089522000604 Main

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 49 (2023) 100608
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Accounting

Information Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/accinf
A meta-analysis of factors affecting acceptance of information

technology in auditing
Akram Afsay a, *, Arash Tahriri a, Zabihollah Rezaee b
a
Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
b
Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Technology advancements provide opportunities for auditors to use new tools in the audit pro
Information Technology cess. This study presents a synthesis of technology-related auditing research to identify factors
Auditing affecting the use of technology in auditing. We analyze 88 studies in identifying 21 factors
Technology Acceptance
relevant to technology acceptance in auditing based on country of origin (developed or devel
Meta-Analysis
CAATT
oping), user type (external or internal), type of technology (traditional or advanced), firm size
(Big 4 or non-Big 4), and publication time (before and after 2013). Our results show that the most
important factors in accepting technology from an individual perspective are facilitator condi
tions, perceived usefulness, and understanding of ease of use. Technology acceptance factors
relevant to an organizational perspective are cost-benefit technology, competitive pressure,
company readiness, and matching technology-task. Results suggest that perceived usefulness and
subjective norm are more important in developed countries and Big 4 audit firms, while auditors
in developing countries and non-Big 4 audit firms are more influenced by perceived ease of use,
facilitating conditions, and organizational factors. Adopting traditional technologies is also more
influenced by understanding the ease of use, subjective norms, and top management support than
advanced technologies. This study contributes to the literature by assessing technology accep
tance factors in auditing and thus provides policy, practice, and research implications.
1. Introduction
Developments in information technology have changed all aspects of human life, especially professional careers, and have led to
significant changes in finance, auditing, and accounting. The large-scale adoption of information systems and enterprise resource
planning (ERP) systems in organizations has made the use of technology in auditing a necessity (Alles, 2015; Braun and Davis, 2003).
Technological tools enable auditors to audit complex business environments with high inherent risk and utilize professional judgment
in a more structured audit process (Cao et al., 2015). The use of technology can improve efficiency, automation, accountability, and
information processing and reduce costs, human errors, audit risk, and the level of technical information required to perform audit
work (Janvrin et al., 2008; Lowe et al., 2018). Inability and unwillingness to use technology in auditing can cause challenges and have
negative consequences in providing auditing services (Tiberius and Hirth, 2019), result in detrimental effects on the auditing pro
fession (Manita et al., 2020), and produce poor audit quality in today’s complex world (Salijeni et al., 2019). Prior research suggests
that technology in the auditing profession is not as well-developed as it should be (Kim et al., 2009). Although some large audit firms,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.afsay@ut.ac.ir (A. Afsay), arashtahriri@ut.ac.ir (A. Tahriri), zrezaee@memphis.edu (Z. Rezaee).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100608
Received 2 November 2021; Received in revised form 19 September 2022; Accepted 12 December 2022
Available online 7 January 2023
1467-0895/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Afsay et al. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 49 (2023) 100608
including Big 4 audit firms, use technology extensively (Salijeni et al., 2019; Krieger et al., 2021), many audit firms, especially in
developing countries (Mahzan and Lymer, 2014; Widuri et al., 2016) and small firms (Lowe et al., 2018; Krieger et al., 2021), still do
not use technology properly (Alles and Gray, 2016; Meredith et al., 2020).
The history of auditing software development includes many projects that have not been adopted by auditors or have little use
(Curtis and Payne, 2008; Debreceny et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2009; Ahmi and Kent, 2013) because designers have not been able to
consider critical factors (Pedrosa et al., 2019). Therefore, it is important to search for factors that may influence technology acceptance
in auditing. Prior studies examine the factors affecting the acceptance of technology by auditors and audit firms (e.g., Ferri et al., 2020;
Pedrosa et al., 2019; Siew et al., 2020; Li et al., 2018; Rosli et al., 2012; Rosli et al., 2016) with often inconsistent and mixed results. For
example, Ahmi and Kent (2013) state that auditors are concerned that their initial investment in the technology will outweigh the
future benefits of using it, which leads auditors to reject the technology, whereas Curtis and Payne (2008) argue that “forward-
thinking” auditors see the use of technology as the way to reduce costs in the long run. The scattering of the results provides an
opportunity to describe, synthesize, and integrate the results of prior studies and further our understanding of this area in the liter
ature. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence of factors affecting the acceptance of technology by
auditors and present a comprehensive and objective aspect of technology use in the form of an integrated theoretical supporting model.
Specifically, we address the following research questions: (1) What are the most important factors affecting the acceptance of tech
nology in auditing (from both individual and organizational perspectives)? and (2) Does the type of user, country of origin, firm size,
type of technology, and study publication time have a moderating role in identifying the factors affecting the acceptance of technology
in auditing?
We use the meta-analysis method to assess and analyze the results of a large sample of prior studies as meta-analysis is a more
reliable method than just a mere literature review (Oliveira and Martins, 2010; Hunter and Schmidt, 2014). meta-analysis translates
the results of different studies into a common scale and examines the relationship between the characteristics of studies and findings
with statistical methods (Baptista and Oliveira, 2016). In this meta-analysis, 21 relationships are identified from technology accep
tance models in auditing presented in 88 independent studies. The results show that the most influential factors in accepting tech
nology in auditing from an individual perspective are facilitating conditions, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use.
Furthermore, the most influential technology factors in auditing from an organizational perspective are cost-benefit, competitive
pressure, firm readiness, and matching technology-tasks. In particular, perceived usefulness and subjective norm are more important
in developed countries and Big 4 audit firms, while auditors in developing countries and non-Big 4 audit firms are more influenced by
perceived ease of use, facilitating conditions, and organizational factors. In addition, external auditors are more affected by organi
zational factors than internal auditors. The adoption of traditional technologies is also more influenced by an understanding of ease of
use, subjective norms, and top management support than advanced technologies.
We contribute to the extant literature in technology acceptance by auditors in several ways. First, we integrate the quantitative
results of previous studies and provide a comprehensive and coherent theoretical model that can be used by practitioners and re
searchers. Second, our paper is a unique meta-analysis by utilizing a large sample of technology acceptance studies based on individual
and organizational perspectives, country of origin, type of user, type of technology, size of the audit firm, and study time. Third, our
paper provides practical guidelines for auditing professionals, audit firm managers, and designers of auditing technology platforms
that can be generalized to different audit markets and settings, given the subgroup analyses. Finally, we provide policy and practice
implications for regulators and standard-setters to establish rules or guidelines to encourage or require the use of audit technology.
Regulators and standard-setters should consider changes in the audit methodology to reduce the auditors’ concern about task fit with
the standards and make the audit processes more robust. We suggest that professional bodies and standard-setters consider technology
capabilities as an essential skill for future auditors and design strategies to increase auditors’ understanding and knowledge through
training. Overall, our study contributes to the literature by presenting a meta-analysis of factors driving whether internal and external
auditors accept information technology.
The paper is organized as follows. The second section presents the institutional background and literature review. The third section
presents the research methodology, sample selection, and variables construction. Section four presents the meta-analysis results.
Section five describes the main conclusions, and section six presents policy, practice, and research implications. Section seven discusses
the limitations and suggestions for future research, and section eight concludes.
2. Institutional background and literature review
2.1. Auditing technologies
The technologies used in auditing can be divided into two categories of traditional and advanced technologies (Alles and Gray,
2016; Krieger et al., 2021). Computer-assisted audit tools and techniques (CAATTs), generalized audit software (GAS), and general IT
fall into the category of traditional audit technologies (Krieger et al., 2021). CAATTs include technologies such as electronic audit
working papers, database applications, and business intelligence audit software (Braun and Davis, 2003; Janvrin et al., 2008, 2009;
Mahzan and Veerankutty, 2011; Siew et al., 2020). Despite the importance of CAATTs in lowering audit costs and increasing audit
quality and efficiency (Banker et al., 2002; Pincus et al., 2003) and their wide usage in developed countries (Lowe et al., 2018),
CAATTs have not been utilized extensively in developing countries (Mahzan and Lymer, 2014; Widuri et al., 2016). Several studies
examine factors affecting the acceptance of audit technology in general (Janvrin et al., 2008; Vasarhelyi and Romero, 2014; Lowe
et al., 2018) or the adoption of CAATTs (Janvrin et al., 2009a,b; Rosli et al., 2013; Curtis and Payne, 2014; Pedrosa et al., 2015; Li et al.,
2018; Pedrosa et al., 2019; Siew et al., 2020) and GAS (Ahmi and Kent, 2013; Widuri et al., 2016).
2
Fig. 1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). (Davis et al., 1989).
Fig. 2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2). (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).
Fig. 3. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Advanced auditing technologies refer to a set of new technologies, including big data analytics (BDA), robotic process automation
(RPA), artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain (Krieger et al., 2021; Alles and Gray, 2016; Cao et al., 2015). Since the application of
advanced technologies requires a new set of facilities and skills in auditing firms (Dagiliene and Kloviene, 2019; Salijeni et al., 2019;
Haddara et al., 2018), auditors often face major challenges when trying to adopt advanced technologies (Alles and Gray, 2016). For
this reason, the current acceptance of advanced technologies is limited in audit firms, and often these technologies are used in large
audit firms in developed countries (Eilifsen et al., 2019; Salijeni et al., 2019; Alles and Gray, 2016).
2.2. Theories of technology acceptance
The issue of accepting or resisting new technologies has been extensively debated in describing “the positive decision to use an
innovation” (Simon, 2001), identifying the factors that influence the use of technologies (Karahanna et al., 2006), and predicting users’
reactions (Dillon and Morris, 1996). Several models and theories are developed to understand and predict user behavior and identify
factors affecting the acceptance of technology by the user (Taherdoost, 2018), including the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
(Davis et al., 1989), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), the Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI) (Rogers, 1995), and the Technology-Organization-
Environment Framework (TOE) (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990). The first three models are predominantly utilized to study tech
nology acceptance at the individual level, while the DOI and TOE are usually used to study technology acceptance at the organizational
level (Krieger et al., 2021).
Adapted from theories in social-psychological/behavioral, Davis et al. (1989) develop the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
presented in Fig. 1, which is considered the most widely used model for explaining the intention to use technology (Tao et al., 2019).
TAM states that a person’s actual behavior is influenced by the person’s intention to do that behavior (Davis et al., 1989). Therefore,
the stronger a person’s intention to perform a particular behavior; the more likely do that behavior (Charter, 2009). Behavioral
intention is influenced by people’s attitudes, and two main constructs of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness shape attitude.
In addition, perceived ease of use directly affects perceived usefulness, which in turn directly affects behavioral intention (Davis et al.,
1989). In subsequent efforts, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) update the original TAM model and presented TAM2 (Fig. 2). TAM2 removes
the attitude factor from the original TAM and adds two factors: subjective norm and job relevance. Subjective norm refers to the impact
of social pressure and the opinions of influential people to accept technology. It directly impacts both perceived usefulness and intent
to use (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Venkatesh et al. (2003), adopting the original TAM, developed the Unified Theory of Acceptance
3
Fig. 4. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). (Ajzen, 1991).
Fig. 5. Technology-Organization-Environment framework (TOE). (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990).
and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Fig. 3). They replaced the terms perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and subjective norm
with the terms performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence, respectively, and added a new variable called the
facilitating conditions to their model (Tao et al., 2019). These factors are affected by the moderating variables of experience, age,
gender, and voluntariness of use. Facilitating conditions are objective factors in the environment that simplify the acceptance of
innovation by the individual (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The four models of TAM, TAM2, TPB (Fig. 4), and UTAUT have emerged in a complementing manner. However, Rogers (1995)
presents the Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI), which explains how innovations diffuse and are used in technology acceptance
studies from individual and organizational perspectives. From an organizational perspective, DOI includes two main stages: initiation
and implementation (Krieger et al., 2021). At the initiation stage, the organization recognizes an organizational problem and accepts
innovation to solve it. If the organization decides to accept the innovation, it will enter the implementation stage. According to the
organization, the innovation is modified or reinvented during this stage. Then it is put into use throughout the organization. Inno
vation, with continued use and becoming clear to the members of the organization, gradually becomes a routine process and loses its
innovative identity (Rogers, 2003; Krieger et al., 2021). Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) present a broader model of technology
acceptance that, in addition to organizational factors, includes technological and environmental factors. The Technology-
Organization-Environment framework (TOE) (Fig. 5), presented by Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990), is based on the organizational
perspective and considers the contextual factors in technology acceptance. The TOE framework has three main dimensions: Tech
nology, Organization, and Environment. The technology dimension refers to the availability and characteristics of the technology. The
organizational dimension refers to factors related to the organization, such as organization size, management attitude, IT competence
of personnel, and organizational readiness (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). Finally, the environmental dimension includes market structure,
industry characteristics, competitors and customers, macro-infrastructures to support technology, and professional and government
regulation (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990).
Taken together, these theories present several factors relevant to technology acceptance, which can be classified into four main
categories, including factors of the individual (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and subjective norm), organizational
(e.g., firm size, firm readiness, and top management support), environmental (e.g., the complexity of the client’s AIS, competitive
pressure, and professional bodies’ support), and technological (e.g., technology-task matching and cost-benefit of technology). These
factors and attributes are described in detail in the following subsections and used in our meta-analysis.
Perceived usefulness (performance expectancy) refers to the extent of the users’ perception of the positive impact of technology on
their performance in conducting the intended tasks (Davis et al., 1989). Venkatesh et al. (2003) state that performance expectancy is
the strongest predictor of the intention to use technology. Banker et al. (2002) indicate that the use of technology has a positive
relationship with the expectation of reducing audit operations time and improving audit quality. Pedrosa and Costa (2014) suggest that
performance expectancy is the most important motivator for auditors to use computer audit tools. Curtis and Payne (2008) and Rosli
et al. (2013) find that performance expectancy has a significant positive relationship with auditors’ intention to use new software in
audit operations.
Perceived ease of use (effort expectancy) refers to the user’s understanding of the degree of effort required to use the technology
4
(Davis et al., 1989). In the framework of UTAUT, Venkatesh et al. (2003) change the term perceived ease of use to effort expectancy. The
literature shows that the probability of accepting a new technology increases if users feel that using this tool in their daily work does
not require too much effort (Martens et al., 2014). Curtis and Payne (2008) examine the intention of senior auditors to use technology
in audit operations and conclude that the effort expectancy is strongly associated with the intention of auditors to accept an audit
software. Rosli et al. (2013) find that the effort expectancy affects the intention of external auditors to use technology, and the simpler
the technology used, the more likely it is to adopt the technology.
Subjective norm (social influence) refers to the impact of social pressure and the opinions of influential people on the person to
accept technology (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Venkatesh et al. (2003), in the framework of UTAUT, turn the subjective norm term into
the social influence term. Curtis and Payne (2008) state that the subjective norm positively affects auditors’ intention to use audit
technologies.
Facilitating conditions are objective factors in the environment that simplify the acceptance of technology by the individual
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). The UTAUT structure considers the facilitating conditions of the company’s efforts to overcome barriers to
technology use. Previous studies show that employees’ perceptions of facilitating conditions will lead to more user adoption of new
technologies (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Janvrin et al. (2009b) find that facilitating conditions, which exist mostly in large audit
firms, increase the probability of the auditor accepting the technology.
The cost-benefit of technology is the perceived benefits of technology adoption compared to the perceived costs of technology
adoption (Rosli et al., 2013). According to Rogers (2003), the benefits derived from the comparative advantage of technology affect the
degree of technology acceptance. In addition, Daoud et al. (2021) find that the cost-benefit of technology is one of the factors
influencing the acceptance of technology by auditors.
Technology compatibility or Technology-task matching refers to the extent that technology is compatible with the auditor’s needs
and its ability to assist the auditor in performing audit tasks (Rosli et al., 2013). For example, Mahzan and Lymer (2008) find that
external auditors were inclined to adopt technologies when the technologies matched with their tasks. However, Siew et al. (2020)
show that compatibility has significant negative influences on CAATTs adoption.
Firm size is one of the topics widely discussed in the previous literature that could significantly affect technology acceptance
(Debreceny et al., 2005; Curtis and Payne, 2008; Janvrin et al., 2009a,b). Large audit firms with more financial resources can purchase
and maintain advanced audit software and provide extensive training services to their staff. In contrast, small audit firms usually do not
have sufficient financial resources and can invest in software purchases and staff training in a limited way (Daoud et al., 2021).
Furthermore, large audit firms are often responsible for auditing large and reputable companies and use more complex procedures for
auditing than smaller firms. Hence, the benefits of using technology in large audit firms are more evident (AuditNet, 2012). Rosli et al.
(2013) and Daoud et al. (2021) find a positive and significant relationship between the use of audit technologies and firm size.
Firm readiness refers to the existence of sufficient financial and technological resources and the necessary infrastructures for
adopting technology in the audit firm (Rosli et al., 2016). Using financial resources, companies can equip themselves with advanced
information technology and provide internal facilities to support this technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Janvrin et al. (2008) and
Daoud et al. (2021) find that the organization’s physical facilities and technology infrastructure positively affect auditors’ motivation
to adopt CAATTs.
Top management support refers to the extent that top management participates and guides technology implementation in the audit
firm (Rosli et al., 2013). Prior research suggests that top management support in decision-making for technology acceptance in
auditing firms is important (Li et al., 2018; Siew et al., 2020; Mahzan and Lymer, 2008). For example, Rosli et al. (2013) find that when
the top management encourages auditors to use computer auditing tools, auditors are much more likely to use them. Also, Ahmi and
Kent (2013) find management support is one of the most important factors influencing auditors’ decisions to adopt audit software.
The complexity of the client’s accounting information system (AIS) refers to the level of complexity of the technology used by the
client as well as the extent of difficulty and volume of the financial events processed in the client information systems (Janvrin et al.,
2008; Tahriri and Afsay, 2021). The client’s AIS’s complexity may increase the auditors’ responsibility to understand intricate and
specific business issues and transactions (Vasarhelyi and Alles, 2008). Janvrin et al. (2009a,b) document that this complexity en
courages auditors to use computer-aided auditing methods more effectively and efficiently. Meredith et al. (2020) report that the
acceptance of technology by audit firms is affected by the complexity of the client’s information system.
Competitive pressure refers to the level of perceived competitive pressure in the activity environment of audit firms (Zhu et al.,
2003). According to the business literature, when many companies in industry accept technology, competitors are encouraged to adopt
information technology (Iacovou et al. 1995; Tornatzky and Fleischer 1990; Zhu et al. 2003). Daoud et al. (2021) argue that audit firms
are more likely to accept technology to maintain client satisfaction and market share when competitors use technology.
Professional accounting bodies’ support refers to the extent to which professional accounting bodies have taken the lead in setting
standards, providing guidance, and encouraging audit firms to adopt technologies (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). From the institutional
theory perspective, firms are influenced by the norms of their professional groups and react to their environment accordingly
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Professional accounting bodies can play a significant role in the acceptance of technology by auditing
firms by providing guidance, standards, support, best practices, and training in the use of technology (Pedrosa et al., 2019). According
to Mahzan and Lymer (2008), the recommendations of professional accounting bodies are among the factors auditors follow to adopt
auditing software.
2.3. Literature review
Several streams of research examine the acceptance of information technology in the audit by employing the well-known
5
technology acceptance models. Several models—including TAM (Chafik and Mghizou, 2018; Kim et al., 2009, 2016; Payne and Curtis,
2017; Shihab et al., 2017), UTAUT (Janvrin et al., 2009a,b; Bierstaker et al., 2013; Curtis and Payne, 2014; Pedrosa et al., 2015; Khalil
and Olfa, 2020), and TOE (Rosli et al., 2013; Widuri et al., 2016; Li et al., 2018; Siew et al., 2020; Daoud et al., 2021)—are being used
in many technology acceptance studies in auditing. Studies in auditing are being conducted in two areas of external audit and internal
audit and from both individual and organizational perspectives. Prior literature shows that most studies explore technology adoption
from the individual auditor’s level, not among audit firms from the organizational perspective. Studies such as Curtis and Payne
(2006), Pedrosa and Costa (2014), and Sari and Rahman (2019) examine the factors influencing technology acceptance by external
auditors from the auditor’s individual perspective, whereas other studies including Rosli et al. (2013), Widuri et al. (2016), Siew et al.
(2020), and Witte et al. (2020) examine the factors influencing technology adoption by external auditors from the audit firm
perspective. Studies such as Kim et al. (2009), Gonzalez et al. (2012), and Al-Hiyari (2019) examine the factors influencing technology
acceptance by internal auditors from the auditor’s individual perspective, and studies such as Tijani (2014), Li et al. (2018), Muneer
et al. (2019), and Awuah et al. (2021) investigate the factors influencing technology acceptance by internal auditors from the audit
firm perspective.
Janvrin et al. (2009a,b) find that training programs that increase the competence of auditors can lead to greater acceptance of
technology. Therefore, managers can encourage auditors to develop training programs and create organizational infrastructure to
implement technology. Kim et al. (2009) indicate that the more complex the technology and the more difficult it is for internal auditors
to use it, the less inclined internal auditors are to adopt technology in their procedures. Bierstaker et al. (2013) emphasize the need to
create a technical infrastructure for technology adoption in auditing firms and find that facilitating conditions and expecting per
formance improvements could encourage auditors to adopt audit technologies. Kim et al. (2016) argue that when external auditors,
under the influence of colleagues, supervisors, or organizations, understand the usefulness of technologies, they are more inclined to
use technology. In addition, Kim et al. (2016) show that as technologies become more complex, perceived ease of use plays a more
important role in auditors’ acceptance of technology.
Pedrosa et al. (2019) indicate that the most influential factors in the adoption and use of auditing technologies are facilitator
conditions, the perceived usefulness, the effort expectancy, and the number of auditors. Siew et al. (2020) examine whether technology
adoption in less developed countries is affected by organizational and environmental factors. For environmental factors, the
complexity of clients’ accounting information systems and the perceived level of support of professional accounting bodies affect
CAATTs adoption. For organizational factors, firm size, top management commitment, and employee IT competency were identified to
be significant factors. Moreover, firm size partially moderates the influence of clients’ AIS complexity on CAATTs adoption. In a
qualitative study, Krieger et al. (2021) examine how organizational, technological, and environmental factors affect auditors’
acceptance of technology and find that the technological capabilities of audit firms are critical to the acceptance of technology by
external auditors. This study contributes to the extant literature by focusing on the acceptance and use of technology in auditing.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Meta-analysis
Meta-analysis is one of the best methods to integrate previous studies on technology acceptance beyond literature review studies
that cannot provide integrated results (Hunter and Schmidt, 2014). This statistical method allows combining the results of different
studies with the same subject (Hamari and Keronen, 2017). Meta-analysis can analyze statistically significant and non-significant
relationships (Sabherwal et al., 2006) and strengthen the overall validity of the results (Cook, 1991). In addition, analyzing a body
of literature creates conditions to observe a specific phenomenon from a broader perspective and generate more robust results (King
and He, 2006).
The factors of technology acceptance described in the previous section are used in our meta-analysis by classifying the 88 surveyed
studies into several categories for further analysis. First, we separated and analyzed studies with the organizational perspective from
studies with the individual perspective. The organizational perspective is the perspective of the legal personality of the auditing firm
and considers the challenges that the auditing firm faces in adopting technology. However, the attitudes and perceptions of individual
auditors will play a key role in the successful implementation of technology in the firm.
Second, we classify the sample based on the type of user (external or internal auditor). The difference between external and internal
auditors, which likely leads to differences in technology adoption by them, is not only relevant to their tasks and activities but also to
their audit objectives. External auditors usually focus on the financial reporting audit and are influenced by investors, stakeholders,
and competitive pressures to gain a client whereas internal auditors typically perform the operational audit and are less affected by
external groups and competitive pressures. The third category is developed countries versus developing countries. Developed countries
have different economic, social, and cultural conditions and technological infrastructure than developing countries (Tao et al., 2019;
Siew et al., 2020). These cases probably cause the difference in factors affecting the adoption of auditing technologies in developed and
developing countries.
In the fourth category, we use the size of auditing firms in classify studies into Big 4 audit firms and non-Big 4 audit firms. Janvrin
et al. (2009a,b) find significant differences in the use of computer-related audit procedures between the Big 4, national, regional, and
local firms. While large auditing firms, especially the Big 4, have adequate financial and technological facilities and capabilities and
often dictate the use of technology to their employees, smaller auditing firms may have fewer incentives to use technology (Daoud
et al., 2021). The fifth category is based on the use of traditional and advanced technologies. Since applying advanced technologies
requires a new set of facilities and skills in auditing firms, auditors will face major challenges when adopting advanced technologies.
6
Fig. 6. Studies’ search and selection procedures.
Fig. 7. Annual frequency of studies used in meta-analysis over the past 20 years.
Finally, we classify studies based on the publication time. The advancements in technology over time and changes in the expectations
of professional bodies, stakeholders, and society regarding auditors’ use of technology can affect the factors affecting the acceptance of
technology. In 2013, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) emphasized the impact of technological
advances on auditing financial statements. In the same year, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) published
a statement entitled “Evolution of auditing: From the traditional approach to the future audit” which indicates the superiority of
technology-driven auditing over traditional auditing (Salijeni et al., 2019). Based on this, we make 2013 the year of separation of
studies into two groups before 2013 and after 2013.
3.2. Surveyed studies
This meta-analysis runs during the ten months ending April 2022. A systematic literature search is done in the most important
electronic scientific databases, including ProQuest, Ebsco, Science Direct, Scopus, Emerald, Springer, SSRN, Elsevier, Jstor, Google
Scholar, and Taylor and Francis for published papers from 1975 (the year when Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is developed as the
first theory for accepting innovation by Fishbein and Ajzen) to March 2022. The search strategy consists of combining two collections
of phrases related to acceptance (technology acceptance, technology diffusion, technology adoption, TAM, UTAUT, or TOE) and audit.
Keywords and associated controlled terms are intentionally used to decrease the probability of losing relevant articles. Studies with
related titles are selected and further examined in the initial search by reviewing the abstract. The content of diagnosed relevant
7
Fig. 8. Classification of countries of origin studies used in meta-analysis.
Fig. 9. Theories applied in studies used in meta-analysis.
Fig. 10. Separation of studies based on type of perspective and country.
8
studies is carefully examined for final inclusion. In addition, the reference lists of several high-quality and new related articles (i.e.,
Pedrosa et al., 2019; Siew et al., 2020, and Krieger et al., 2021) are also manually searched to find any potential missing articles. Fig. 6
shows the selection process of studies for meta-analysis. Eighty-eight articles deem eligible to be included in the meta-analysis, which
is considered sufficient to provide appropriate accuracy for meta-analysis (Borenstein et al., 2010) and provide the possibility of
generalizing the overall results (King and He, 2006).
Most of the studies have been done in the past ten years (76 %) (Fig. 7) and are distributed in various regions such as Asia (57 %),
North America (19 %), and Europe (13 %). As shown in Fig. 8, of the 27 countries where these studies were conducted, Indonesia had
the highest frequency with 23 studies. Sixty-seven studies (76 %) using TAM, UTAUT, PEOU, and TPB models examine the auditor’s
individual perspective, and fifteen studies (17 %) examine the auditor’s organizational perspective and used models such as TOE
(Fig. 9). Six studies (7 %) also examine individual and organizational perspectives. Fig. 10 shows that the percentage of technology
acceptance studies in auditing from the organizational perspective is higher in developing countries than in developed countries (see
Appendix 1 for detailed information on the 88 studies).
3.3. Data extraction and analysis
Given that meta-analysis can combine the numerical coefficients between various factors (Gerow et al., 2014), the variable re
lationships reported in 88 different studies are identified, aggregated, and sorted. Some studies examine the models with several
independent samples (e.g., large, small, and medium-sized institutes). In such cases, data is extracted separately, and each sample is
considered an independent study (Higgins and Green, 2011). As a result, a total of 916 relationships were found. Also, in this study,
synonymous factors are combined and considered as a single factor. In particular, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social
influence, technology compatibility, and training are combined with perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, subjective norm,
technology-task matching, and employees’ IT competency, respectively (Tao et al., 2019). The two authors separately extract and
combine data from different studies, and then the third author examines their extracted data. Different comments on data combi
nations were discussed among the three authors until an agreement was reached. Following Hamari and Keronen (2017), only re
lationships are included in the meta-analysis that was used at least three times in the literature. Accordingly, the initial number of
relationships is reduced to 21.
Various studies have presented these relationships with different statistics, including R, F, T, p-value, and x2. According to Lipsey
and Wilson’s (2001) recommendation, different statistics are converted to effect size using the following formulas to standardize the
results. Also, to convert the p-value statistic to the effect size, this statistic is first converted to t, and then t is transformed to the effect
size with the first formula.
t
r = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (1)
t2 + df
√̅̅̅̅̅
x2
r= (2)
n
√̅̅̅̅
F
r = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (3)
F + n1 + n2 − 2
Following Wu et al. (2011) and Glass et al. (1981), the Pearson correlation coefficient is utilized to estimate the effect size (ES)
because most technology acceptance models present the value of r, and it is also easier to interpret in terms of practical significance
than other indicators. However, the measurement error may reduce the correlation between variables. To solve this problem, before
meta-analysis, the main correlations are corrected with the help of attenuation correction methods (i.e., the main correlations are
divided by the square root of the product of the reliabilities of the two variables) (Wu et al., 2011; Tao et al., 2019).
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
runcorrected
rcorrected = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (4)
reliabilityx reliabilityy
When measuring direct impact, the Fisher Z transformation is used to calculate each r’s corresponding Zri (Eq. (5)). The effect size
(ES) presented in Table 1 is obtained by calculating the weighted mean of Zr (Eq. (6)) (Wu et al., 2011; Higgins and Green, 2011),
where Ni is the sample size in each study.
1 + ri
Zi = 0.5loge ( ) (5)
1 − ri
∑
(Ni − 3)Zi
ES = ∑ (6)
(Ni − 3)
Following Baptista and Oliveira (2019), we examine the strength of relationships in the meta-analysis. This analysis method is one
of the best analysis methods used in meta-analysis (Rana et al., 2015). The findings presented as “weight” are equal to the number of
times a relationship is recognized to be statistically significant, divided by the number of times mentioned in the literature. The column
“Type” shows the best predictors based on the classification of Sabherwal et al. (2006): (1) relationships are mentioned five or more
9
Table 1
Meta-analysis results.
No. of Total Effect Z value Confidence Homogeneity (Q- I2 Weight (sig/ Type
trials sample Size Size interval (95 %) value) total)
Lower Upper
Individual perspective
PU → ITU 74 10,044 0.449*** 48.444 0.433 0.464 827.79 90.939 88 % best predictors
PU → ATT 6 440 0.720*** 24.183 0.787 0.848 19.495 64.094 100 % promising
predictors
PEOU → ITU 54 7552 0.418*** 38.687 0.399 0.436 1892.48 97.093 79 %
PEOU → PU 29 4303 0.724*** 60.066 0.709 0.728 1157.02 97.407 82 % best predictors
PEOU → ATT 8 578 0.610*** 16.999 0.556 0.652 158.159 94.309 62 %
ATT → ITU 16 1761 0.352*** 15.418 0.310 0.392 196.296 91.339 75 %
ITU → AU 17 2265 0.436*** 22.224 0.402 0.469 278.577 93.538 82 % best predictors
SN → PU 4 636 0.223*** 5.706 0.167 0.266 21.974 77.245 75 %
SN → ITU 35 5316 0.371*** 28.397 0.348 0.394 924.391 96.105 68 %
JR → PU 6 854 0.619*** 21.102 0.576 0.659 575.688 98.784 50 %
FC → ITU 24 3539 0.463*** 30.484 0.446 0.497 360.614 93.067 83 % best predictors
Organizational perspective
TCB → ITU 18 1977 0.666*** 35.700 0.641 0.690 205.203 90.740 83 % best predictors
TR → ITU 16 2463 0.332*** 17.115 0.296 0.367 730.704 97.673 63 %
MTT → ITU 21 3404 0.505*** 32.425 0.480 0.530 278.270 92.094 90 % best predictors
FS → ITU 13 1517 0.146*** 5.722 0.096 0.195 65.133 78.505 64 %
FR → ITU 23 2973 0.516*** 31.111 0.489 0.542 69.271 65.35 94 % best predictors
TMS → ITU 22 5521 0.376*** 29.371 0.353 0.398 678.280 96.609 73 %
EITC → ITU 21 5711 0.472*** 38.731 0.452 0.492 151.915 85.518 76 %
COCAIS → ITU 15 2284 0.365*** 18.275 0.329 0.400 470.635 96.600 86 % best predictors
CP → ITU 9 1915 0.581*** 29.033 0.551 0.610 234.672 95.738 67 %
PABS → ITU 20 2335 0.364*** 18.422 0.328 0.399 185.003 88.648 85 % best predictors
Summary effect 0.493*** 11.141 0.438 0.541
(random)
PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use; ATT: Attitude; ITU: Intention to use; AU: Actual Use; SN: Subjective norm; JR: Job relevance;
FC: Facilitating conditions; TCB: Technology cost-benefit; TR: Technology risk; MTT: Matching technology-task; FS: Firm size; FR: Firm readiness;
TMS: Top management support; EITC: employees’ IT competency; COCAIS: Complexity of client’s AIS; CP: Competitive Pressure; PABS: professional
accounting bodies support.
***
P-value < 0.005.
times in previous studies are classified as “well-utilized,” (2) relationships are mentioned four or fewer times are classified as
“experimental,” (3) well-utilized relationships with weight 80 % or more are classified as the “best predictors,” and (4) the experi
mental relationships with weight 100 % are classified as “promising predictors.”.
Heterogeneity between studies is evaluated using the I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test (Eq. (7)). The high value of Q (and the low
value of P-value) indicates that the null hypothesis of homogeneity between studies is rejected (Higgins et al., 2003).
∑
∑ [ (Ni − 3)ESi ]2
QTotal = (Ni − 3)ESi 2 − ∑ (7)
(Ni − 3)
Using the homogeneity test between groups, the between-group effect is assessed and shown by the heterogeneity coefficient (QB)
(Tao et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2011).
QW = QGroup1 + QGroup2 (8)
QB = QTotal − QW (9)
2 2
Due to the low sensitivity of the Cochran test, the I test is also used to examine heterogeneity (Eq. (10)). I values of 25 %, 50 %,
and 75 % indicate low, moderate, and high heterogeneity levels (Higgins et al., 2003), where g is the number of estimates of effects that
have been combined.
⎧
⎨ Q − g + 1 × 100%, Q > g − 1
⎪
I2 = Q # (10)
⎪
⎩ 0, Q < g − 1
We use the funnel plot to investigate the possibility of bias in identifying and selecting studies. Although the funnel plot used for the
whole study shows high asymmetry in some relationships, the funnel plot used for the subgroups suggests no evidence of bias, and the
level of heterogeneity is relatively low. We use the random-effects model when high heterogeneity exists in this meta-analysis (Elvik,
2011). The results of the meta-analysis are obtained using the Comprehensive meta-Analysis software tool (Version 2).
10
Table 2
Results of subgroup analysis (Country of origin and Auditor type).
Country of origin Auditor type
Developed Developing External Internal
PU → ITU
N 26 48 67 7
Effect size (Low, Up) 0.475*** (0.451,0.499) 0.431*** (0.410,0.451) 0.421*** (0.404,0.438) 0.538*** (0.497,0.577)
QB 4.51 53.10
PEOU → ITU
N 23 32 46 8
QB 30.424 15.488
SN → ITU
N 13 22 29 6
Effect size (Low, Up) 0.505*** (0.474,0.535) 0.266*** (0.232,0.299) 0.375*** (0.349,401) 0.356*** (0.302,407)
QB 73.803 0.289
FC → ITU
N 8 16 19 5
QB 9.827 0.072
TCB → ITU
N 8 10 17 1
Effect size (Low, Up) 0.669*** (0.621,0.712) 0.666*** (0.636,0.694) 0.699*** (0.675,0.722) 0.298***
QB 0.036 23.113
MTT → ITU
N 3 18 20 1
Effect size (Low, Up) 0.860*** (0.808,0.899) 0.491*** (0.465,0.517) 0.500*** (0.474,0.525) 0.467***
QB 16.305 1.554
FR → ITU
N 4 19 20 3
QB 0.320 34.503
TMS → ITU
N 8 14 15 7
QB 81.872 185.978
PABS → ITU
N 7 13 13 7
QB 9.078 33.971
PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use; ITU: Intention to use; SN: Subjective norm; FC: Facilitating conditions; TCB: Technology cost-
benefit; MTT: Matching technology-task; FR: Firm readiness; TMS: Top management support; PABS: professional accounting bodies support.
***
P-value < 0.005.
4. Meta-analysis results
We analyze twenty-one relationships that are extracted from the technology acceptance models. Eleven relationships are related to
the main constructs of models with the individual perspective of technology acceptance (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and subjective norm), and ten relationships are related to the main constructs of models with the organizational perspective of
technology acceptance (e.g., firm readiness, firm size, and competitive pressure). Perceived usefulness is identified as the most widely
used factor in the audit technology adoption literature. Other important factors in terms of repetition in the literature are perceived
ease of use and subjective norm. The results of the meta-analysis and tests of heterogeneity are summarized in Table 1. A high degree of
heterogeneity is observed for all relationships, except for the perceived usefulness on attitude, subjective norm on perceived useful
ness, the firm size on the intention of use, and firm readiness on the intention of use. This heterogeneity can be due to differences in the
economic and cultural situation in different countries, differences in the type of auditor (external and internal), or other causes. To
11
Table 3
Results of subgroup analysis (Type of technology, Audit firm size, Research time).
Type of technology Audit firm size Research time
Traditional Advanced Non-Big 4 Big 4 Before 2013 After 2013
PU → ITU
N 68 6 60 8 19 55
Effect size 0.431 0.610 0.421 0.513 0.403 0.460
QB 28.443 33.65 0.927
PEOU → ITU
N 48 6 39 8 12 42
Effect size 0.424 0.380 0.409 0.334 0.405 0.422
QB 1.640 4.724 0.364
SN → ITU
N 34 1 25 4 8 27
Effect size 0.375 0.292 0.326 0.541 0.343 0.432
QB 0.256 33.732 8.894
FC → ITU
N 24 0 18 1 9 15
Effect size 0.463 0.476 0.090 0.512 0.420
QB 10.412 7.238
TCB → ITU
N 17 1 17 0 4 14
Effect size 0.618 0.781 0.699 0.783 0.500
QB 81.849 6.170
MTT → ITU
N 20 1 21 0 4 17
Effect size 0.489 0.673 0.505 0.579 0.500
QB 30.702 1.423
FR → ITU
N 22 1 20 0 2 21
Effect size 0.507 0.544 0.517 0.489 0.517
QB 69.700 0.06
TMS → ITU
N 18 4 13 2 7 14
Effect size 0.464 0.240 0.663 0.112 0.414 0.370
QB 65.391 107.586 1.265
PABS → ITU
N 19 1 20 0 1 19
Effect size 0.323 0.736 0.364 0.576 0.361
QB 84.728 1.594
solve the heterogeneity issue of studies, a random-effects model is used to pool the effect sizes in this meta-analysis (Borenstein et al.,
2010).
The meta-analysis results show that all 21 relationships are statistically significant (P < 0.005). All the statistical relationships show
a narrow 95 % confidence interval of less than 0.099 (The widest is the subjective norm for perceived usefulness with 0.099). Given
that the width of intervals affects the accuracy of studies used in meta-analysis (Rana et al., 2015), the obtained narrow intervals
support the importance and strength of the relationships (Baptista and Oliveira, 2016). The 95 % confidence interval for the re
lationships of the perceived ease of use on the perceived usefulness (0.019), the perceived usefulness on the intention of use (0.031),
the perceived ease of use on the intention of use (0.037), and the employees’ IT competency on the intention of use (0.040) are
narrower than that for other relationships. This means that these relationships are strong and consistent (Baptista and Oliveira, 2016).
The effect size shows the strength of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables (Baptista and Oliveira,
2019). The strongest predictors of the intention of technology use among the factors related to individual perspective are facilitating
conditions (ES = 0.463), perceived usefulness (ES = 0.449), and perceived ease of use (ES = 0.399), respectively. Perceived usefulness
12
and perceived ease of use with effect size (ES = 0.720) and (ES = 0.610) strongly affect attitude. Perceived usefulness can be predicted
by perceived ease of use (ES = 0.724), job relevance (ES = 0.619), and subjective norm (ES = 0.223). Intention to use is also able to
predict actual use (ES = 0.436). Among the factors related to organizational perspective, the strongest predictors of intention to
technology use are technology cost-benefit (ES = 0.666), competitive pressure (ES = 0.581), firm readiness (ES = 0.516), and
matching technology–task (ES = 0.505), respectively.
To achieve a more reliable and in-depth analysis, the classification proposed by Sabherwal et al. (2006) is utilized. Accordingly, as
seen in the “weight” and “type” columns, the only promising predictor is perceived usefulness on attitude. Furthermore, two well-
utilized relationships in the individual perspective and five well-utilized relationships in the organizational perspective are identi
fied as the best predictors of the intention of technology use in auditing. The best predictors of the intention to use in the individual
perspective are facilitating conditions and perceived usefulness. The best predictors of the intention to use in the organizational
perspective are technology cost-benefit, matching technology-task, firm readiness, complexity of client’s AIS, and professional ac
counting bodies’ support. None of the relationships is considered statistically non-significant (Baptista and Oliveira, 2019); the
minimum weight found is 50 % in the job relevance on perceived usefulness. The findings of the two methods support each other. In
particular, all of the best predictions identified have high effect sizes. The summary effect in the random-effects model shows the mean
effects obtained from the different studies used in the meta-analysis is 0.493 and with the 95 % confidence interval it is between 0.438
and 0.541.
4.1. Subgroup analysis
We perform subgroup analysis to identify the factors that potentially moderate the relationships of technology acceptance models
given the heterogeneity test results and considerable variability between studies. Country of origin (developed or developing), user
type (external auditor or internal auditor), firm size (Big 4 or non-Big 4), type of technology (traditional or advanced), and study
publication time (before 2013 or after 2013) are examined in the subgroup analysis. In addition, the between-group effect, which is
indicated by the heterogeneity coefficient (QB), is examined by a homogeneity test between groups. The results indicate that grouping
of studies produces significant moderating effects in reducing heterogeneity between studies. The nine relationships among the main
constructs of technology acceptance models that had both high effect size and high frequency are examined in the subgroup analysis.
The results of the subgroup analysis based on country of origin and user type are presented in Table 2.
In this study, 27 countries in which the studies are conducted are divided into two groups, including developed and developing.
This grouping was based on a classification provided by the United Nations (2020) according to the Human Development Index.
Auditors in developing countries show a larger effect size than auditors in developed countries for all relationships except the
perceived usefulness, subjective norm, technology cost-benefit, and matching technology-task on intention to use. The biggest dif
ference in effect size between developed and developing countries is related to matching technology-task (0.369), top management
support (0.245), and subjective norm (0.239), respectively.
User type distinguishes external auditors from internal auditors. The effect size of the organizational factors for external auditors is
greater than for internal auditors. Specifically, the effect size of facilitating conditions (0.465), technology cost-benefit (0.699), firm
readiness (0.571), top management support (0.570), matching technology-task (0.500), and professional accounting bodies support
(0.495) are larger for external auditors. On the other hand, the effect size of perceived usefulness (0.538) and perceived ease of use
(0.517) is larger for internal auditors.
The results of the subgroup analysis based on audit firm size, study publication time, and type of technology are presented in
Table 3. Considering the challenges of technology adoption in large auditing firms differ from those in small and medium-sized
auditing firms, studies are grouped into two groups, Big 4 and Non-Big 4, based on the size of the audit firm. This separation only
includes studies conducted on external auditors. The findings show that the effect size of the perceived usefulness and the subjective
norm in Big 4 firms is larger than non-Big 4 firms. However, the effect size of other factors such as the perceived ease of use, facilitating
conditions, and top management support in non-Big 4 firms is larger than in Big 4 firms. The biggest difference in effect size between
Big 4 and non-Big 4 firms is related to top management support (0.551), facilitating conditions (0.386), and subjective norm (0.215),
respectively. Of course, it should be noted that no studies in this meta-analysis examine some of the organizational factors (such as firm
readiness and professional accounting bodies’ support) in Big 4 firms.
Given the advancement of technology over time and the changing expectations of the profession and stakeholders regarding
technology adoption by auditors, we address the impact of time on our study. We make 2013 the year of separation of studies and
classify the studies into two groups based on the study’s publication time, before 2013 and after 2013. The findings show that the effect
size of individual factors, including perceived usefulness (0.460), perceived ease of use (0.422), and subjective norm (0.432) after
2013, are larger than before 2013. On the other hand, the effect size of facilitating conditions (0.512), technology cost-benefit (0.783),
matching technology-task (0.579), top management support (0.414), and professional bodies support (0.576) before 2013 are larger
than after 2013. The biggest differences in effect size between before and after 2013 studies are technology cost-benefit (0.283) and
professional bodies support (0.215), respectively, that in both factors, the effect size before 2013 is larger.
We separate the studies that examine the acceptance of traditional technologies from the studies that examine the acceptance of
advanced technologies and analyze them into two groups because the factors affecting the acceptance of these technologies are
probably different in these groups. The results show that the effect size of all factors except perceived ease of use (0.380), subjective
norm (0.292), and top management support (0.240) in accepting advanced technologies are larger than traditional technologies. The
largest differences in effect size between the factors related to the adoption of traditional and advanced technologies are the pro
fessional accounting bodies’ support (0.413), top management support (0.224), matching technology-task (0.184), and technology
13
Table 4
Results of subgroup analysis (2 × 2 matrix).
Auditor type Research time
External Internal Before 2013 After 2013
PU → ITU
N 23 3 13 16
Developed
Effect size 0.454 0.608 0.506 0.448
QB 10.8 3.393
N 44 4 7 41
Developing Effect size 0.425 0.483 0.294 0.449
QB 1.99 14.436
PEOU → ITU
N 20 3 9 13
Developed
Effect size 0.344 0.656 0.463 0.303
QB 43.149 64.549
N 27 5 3 29
QB 1.109 23.430
SN → ITU
N 11 2 6 7
Developed
Effect size 0.465 0.754 0.493 0.520
QB 23.221 0.416
N 18 4 2 20
QB 7.356 0.809
FC → ITU
N 6 2 7 1
Developed
Effect size 0.302 0.678 0.412 0.090
QB 34.355 8.220
N 13 3 2 14
QB 24.897 51.195
TCB → ITU
N 8 0 4 4
Developed
Effect size 0.669 0.783 0.435
QB 14.642
N 9 1 0 10
Developing Effect size 0.713 0.298 0.666
QB 23.845
MTT → ITU
N 3 0 1 2
Developed
Effect size 0.860 0.860 0.441
QB 56.369
N 17 1 3 15
QB 2.029 4.453
FR → ITU
N 4 0 1 3
Developed
Effect size 0.480 0.634 0.410
QB 5.745
(continued on next page)
14
Table 4 (continued )
Auditor type Research time
External Internal Before 2013 After 2013
N 16 3 1 18
QB 36.275 3.959
TMS → ITU
N 6 2 4 4
Developed
Effect size 0.432 0.176 0.627 0.174
QB 36.089 77.242
N 9 5 4 10
QB 93.585 55.065
PABS → ITU
N 4 3 1 6
Developed
Effect size 0.419 0.218 0.416 0.280
QB 8.970 2.959
N 9 4 0 13
Developing Effect size 0.532 0.283 0.418
QB 20.120
cost-benefit (0.163), respectively.

To achieve robustness of findings and better and more detailed segregation of studies, with the help of a 2 × 2 matrix, the effect size
of each factor is examined among internal and external auditors and before and after 2013 studies separately for developed and
developing countries, and the results are presented in Table 4. The results show that in developed countries, the effect size of top
management support (0.432) and professional bodies support (0.419) for external auditors are larger than internal auditors. In
contrast, in developing countries, the effect size of perceived ease of use (0.464), subjective norm (0.294), facilitating conditions
(0.561), technology cost-benefit (0.713), matching technology-task (0.489), firm readiness (0.581), top management support (0.632),
and professional bodies support (0.532) for external auditors are larger than internal auditors.
The interesting point about the 2 × 2 matrix is that in developed countries, internal auditors are more influenced by individual
factors, and external auditors are more influenced by organizational factors. However, in developing countries, both organizational
and individual factors (except for perceived usefulness) affect external auditors more than internal auditors. The effect size of
perceived usefulness (0.454), subjective norm (0.335), and matching technology-task (0.860) among external auditors in developed
countries are larger than in developing countries. The effect size of perceived ease of use (0.464), facilitating conditions (0.561),
technology cost-benefit (0.713), firm readiness (0.581), top management support (0.632), and professional bodies support (0.532)
among external auditors in developing countries are larger than in developed countries. Furthermore, individual factors affect internal
auditors in developed countries more than internal auditors in developing countries, and organizational factors affect internal auditors
in developing countries more than internal auditors in developed countries.
The 2 × 2 matrix shows that the subjective norm is the only factor that further affected auditors in developed countries after 2013
than before 2013. Other individual and organizational factors before 2013 significantly impacted technology acceptance by auditors in
developed countries. This indicates that after 2013, auditors’ understanding and organizational conditions for technology adoption in
developed countries have improved and created less concern for technology adoption. Furthermore, because of the development of
technology acceptance among auditors in developed countries after 2013, the subjective norm shows a greater impact after 2013. The
results also show that after 2013, most of the factors affecting technology adoption in developing countries were more influential than
before 2013. Specifically, technology cost-benefit (0.666), top management support (0.544), firm readiness (0.524), matching
technology-task (0.501), perceived ease of use (0.483), perceived usefulness (0.449), the professional bodies support (0.418), and the
subjective norm (0.272) after 2013 show a larger effect size in developing countries.
Based on the meta-analysis results and the effect sizes, an integrated theoretical model (Fig. 11) is designed to present the most
important factors identified in the acceptance of technology by the auditor by highlighting the best predictors and supporting future
studies. Specifically, the effect of 15 factors on the intention to use is presented in this model, in which these factors are divided into
four main categories, including (1) Individual factors: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norm, facilitating con
ditions; (2) Technology factors: technology cost-benefit, technology risk, matching technology-task; (3) Organizational factors: top
management support, firm readiness, employees’ IT competency, and firm size; and (4) Environmental factors: the complexity of
client’s AIS, competitive pressure, professional accounting bodies support. In addition, the effect of perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use on attitude, followed by the effect of attitude on intention to use. Finally, the effect of intention to use on actual use is
15
Fig. 11. Theoretical model based on meta-analysis results.
presented. All of these relationships have strong literature, which is supported by a large number of studies. However, differences in
effect sizes indicate that not all predictors have the same role in technology acceptance among auditors. The best predictors of
technology acceptance in auditing, highlighted in Fig. 11, among the factors in each category are as follows: (1) Individual factors:
perceived usefulness and facilitating conditions; (2) Technological factors: cost-benefit of technology and matching technology-task;
(3) Organizational factors: firm readiness; and (4) Environmental factors: the complexity of client’s AIS and professional accounting
bodies support.
Figs. 12 and 13, based on Table 4 (2 × 2 matrix), present the factors affecting the acceptance of technology among external and
internal auditors in developed and developing countries, respectively. By highlighting the factors that show a larger effect size in each
category than in the other, it tries to help better and easier understand the difference between the factors affecting acceptance of
technology based on user type and country of origin. As Fig. 12 shows, except for perceived usefulness, subjective norm, and matching
technology-task, which are more influential on external auditors in developed countries, other factors have a greater impact on
technology acceptance among external auditors in developing countries. Also, Fig. 13 comparing the factors affecting acceptance of
technology among internal auditors in developed and developing countries shows that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
subjective norm, and facilitating conditions are more influential on technology acceptance by internal auditors in developed countries.
The top management support and the professional accounting bodies’ support have a greater impact on the acceptance of technology
by internal auditors in developing countries.
16
Fig. 12. Differences in factors affecting technology acceptance among external auditors in developed and developing countries.
Fig. 13. Differences in factors affecting technology acceptance among internal auditors in developed and developing countries.
17
5. Discussion
Technological advances have permeated business processes and transformed the business world in the past several decades. The
auditing profession and audit processes have also been affected by technology. However, many auditors, especially in developing
countries and small firms, still use traditional methods to audit today’s complex business environments. Implementation and pro
motion of technology-assisted auditing methods are largely limited due to auditors’ low adoption and non-use of technology. The
purpose of this research is to systematically review and evaluate the factors affecting technology acceptance in the auditing profession
based on the previous acceptance models. Increasing the number of studies, conferences, and books published has made literature
reviews on technology acceptance in auditing more complex and time-consuming. This research provides an opportunity to combine
the results and identify the most important collective findings. This meta-analysis includes 88 studies that quantitatively examine
technology acceptance in the auditing profession with more than 13,000 participants. The literature review shows that the findings of
the studies are scattered, and they have reported more than 910 relationships. Relationships with at least three coefficients available
are selected, and the final number of relationships is decreased to 21. The identified relationships are moderated based on the
characteristics of the studies, including the country of origin, the user type, firm size, type of technology, and study publication time.
The meta-analysis findings support causal relationships in acceptance models, including TAM, UTAUT, PEOU, TPB, and TOE, which
are highly reliable and can be used in technology adoption in the audit.
Results show that the strongest predictors of technology acceptance in auditing from the individual perspective are facilitating
conditions, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness is considered one of the best predictors of intention to
use technology, which is consistent with the results of Ajzen (1991), Davis et al. (1989), and Pedrosa and Costa (2014). While the
results indicate the significance of perceived ease of use on attitude and intention to use, a stronger relationship is observed between
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. This indicates the moderating role of perceived ease of use in the acceptance of
technology by auditors and confirms that auditors are willing to balance ease and usefulness. These findings are consistent with
previous studies’ results that a system must have sufficient utilitarian and simplicity dimensions to engage the user (Hamari and
Koivisto, 2015). Of course, the results are inconsistent. Some studies, such as Young et al. (2008), Mansour (2016), and Khalil and Olfa
(2020), demonstrate that the acceptance of technology in auditing is not affected by ease of use. However, the findings of this research
are consistent with research by Kim et al. (2016), Shihab et al. (2017), suggesting that the perceived ease of use, directly and indirectly,
affects the acceptance of technology by auditors. Indirect impact means that an easy-to-use technology can increase perceived use
fulness for auditors (Tao et al., 2019).
Our findings show that perceived usefulness is more important among auditors in developed countries. While external auditors in
developing countries are more affected by perceived ease of use than external auditors in developed countries, this aligns with the
findings of Mao et al. (2014), Schepers and Wetzels (2007), and Tao et al. (2019), whose perceived ease of use in non-Western cultures
is more important. This interesting finding is driven by national culture and is consistent with the view of Hofstede (2001), suggesting
technology acceptance is influenced by national culture. Uncertainty avoidance (UA) is one of the cultural dimensions which has the
greatest impact on technology adoption in different countries (Cardon and Marshall, 2008). Since decisions based on technological
tools are more predictable than human decisions, the use of technology is more attractive for high UA cultures. Therefore, people in
high UA cultures are more eager to invest in technology (Hofstede, 2001). In high UA cultures, perceived ease of technology use is less
important because people have the necessary skills to learn new technologies, and formal institutions in society support people to learn
new technologies (Cardon and Marshall, 2008). Furthermore, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use substantially affect the
attitude, which supports the main TAM and is compatible with prior studies, such as Dowling (2009) and Sari (2019). These findings
suggest that attitude can be a vital factor in acceptance, and its location in new acceptance models may need to be reconsidered.
Although, attitude is usually excluded from recent acceptance models.
This study confirms that subjective norms affect auditors’ intention to use technology. However, it should be noted that these
findings are likely to be influenced by the auditor’s experience and age. According to Fischer (1996), experienced auditors have a
fanatical and structured mind due to their long background in performing traditional auditing; therefore, they are less affected by
subjective norms. In contrast, young and less experienced auditors often lack the biased and structured mindset to determine whether
they should use technology or not and tend to seek advice from others in this regard (Fischer, 1996).
The subjective norm affects external auditors more than internal auditors. External auditors are likely influenced by investors,
stakeholders, and competitive pressures to gain a client. While internal auditors are accountable to the organization and are less
affected by external groups and competitive pressures. The subjective norm on the acceptance of technology by external auditors of
developed countries and Big 4 firms is more effective than external auditors of developing countries and non-Big 4 firms. This result is
interesting considering Hofstede’s (1991) cultural dimensions, which suggest that in collectivistic cultures (non-Western), individuals
are influenced by the opinions of others due to group conformity and face-saving. The findings of some studies show that in non-
Western cultures, subjective norms are more influential on the intention to perform a behavior (Choi and Geistfeld, 2004; Lee and
Green, 1991). However, the findings of this study are consistent with the results of Schepers and Wetzels (2007), who find that
subjective norm has a greater impact on behavioral intention in Western and developed countries. One of the reasons for the lower
impact of the subjective norm in developing countries may be that audit firms in developing countries are often small and medium-
sized and have limited financial resources. At the same time, the number of clients and the complexity of clients’ AIS of these firms is
less. Hence, they are less likely to be pressured by society and stakeholders to adopt the technology. However, after 2013, auditors
were more affected by the subjective norm. This is probably due to the growth of technology in recent decades, which has made the
acceptance of technology by auditors a requirement. Therefore, all companies, large and small, are expected to implement it.
Consistent with the literature, the results show that technological, organizational, and environmental factors are influential in
18
accepting auditing technology. Among the mentioned factors, the best predictors of intention to use are technology cost-benefit,
competitive pressure, firm readiness, and matching technology-task. Therefore, from the organizational perspective, the technology
cost-benefit is considered the best predictor of the intention to use technology. Ramen et al. (2015), Rosli et al. (2016), and Daoud et al.
(2021) also emphasize the importance of technology cost-benefit. Based on the findings, external auditors are more affected by
organizational factors than internal auditors because the acceptance of technology in the internal audit profession in different parts of
the world is based on the decision of the internal auditor (not professional and organizational pressures) and is done voluntarily.
Therefore, the factors related to individual perspectives play an essential role in accepting or rejecting these technologies by internal
auditors. While specific professional rules and standards guide external auditors, the main role in deciding to use technology is the
responsibility of the audit firm and professional institutions, not external auditors. Specifically, external auditors in developing
countries and non-Big 4 firms were more affected by facilitating conditions, technology cost-benefit, and firm readiness than external
auditors in developed countries and Big 4 firms. This finding indicates that in developing countries and non-Big 4 auditing firms, the
necessary conditions for using technology in the audit are not well provided, and the need to lay the groundwork is felt more than in
developed countries and Big 4 firms. The greater impact of organizational factors in developing countries is consistent with Hofstede
(2001) that in cultures with high power distance, individuals have less involvement in decision-making, and organizational decisions
are more important in technology adoption.
It can be inferred from the results that the audit tools should be compatible with the audit tasks. In particular, external auditors in
developed countries have shown greater importance for matching technology-task. Mahzan and Lymer (2008), Rosli et al. (2013), and
Handoko et al. (2021) also emphasize matching technology-task. It is important that auditors, especially auditors in developing
countries, receive more support from top managers and professional accounting bodies, which is consistent with previous studies by
Ramen et al. (2015), Rosli et al. (2016), and Siew et al. (2020). Furthermore, the adoption of traditional auditing technologies is
influenced by different factors than advanced auditing technologies. The effect size of all factors except the subjective norm and top
management support in the adoption of advanced technologies is larger than traditional technologies. Given the advancement of
technology and increasing auditors’ understanding of the expectations for using technology in the audit process and distancing from
manual auditing, the finding that the subjective norm has a greater impact on the acceptance of traditional technologies is quite
understandable. While the use of advanced technologies such as big data analytics tools is not yet widespread, auditors feel less social
pressure to use them. Client expectations and needs for the use of technology can derive the type and extent of technology use at small
firms. Small audit firms often do not find it cost-effective to use technology and are unwilling to use technology, especially advanced
technologies (Daoud et al., 2021). The clients of small audit firms are usually small and medium-sized companies whose volume and
complexity of operations do not demand the use of advanced technology. These cost-benefit challenges of technology often make both
small audit firms and their clients reluctant to adopt the technology.
6. Research implications
Our results provide several policies, practices, and research implications. First, the results further our understanding of factors and
attributes relevant to the technology acceptance by auditors. Each of the factors influencing technology acceptance in this study
supports the strength of the repeated elements presented in the technology acceptance models in the auditing field. This suggests that
current acceptance models have strong theories for examining the factors influencing technology acceptance decisions by auditors. In
addition, this study is unique in that it uses an analysis of a large sample of technology acceptance studies based on individual and
organizational perspectives, country of origin, type of user, type of technology, size of the audit firm, and study time. Thus, future
research should take into consideration these important technology factors to better understand the use of technology in auditing and
its role in improving audit quality.
Second, the findings of this study present valuable implications for auditing firms and developers of auditing technologies to accept
and use more technology in auditing. The importance of the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use show that the provision of
audit software alone is insufficient for technology acceptance. These technologies must provide services that can fulfill the job needs
and satisfaction of auditors and have concise and applied guides and a user-friendly software environment. Sufficient access to
technology is an important factor in technology acceptance in developing countries because the lack of access to auditing technologies
in developing countries may occur for two main reasons. First, the developing country and its audit firms may not have the sufficient
financial resources to purchase technology and create the necessary infrastructure to implement technology-based auditing. Second,
the developing country may be one of the sanctioned/unfavored countries, where the sale and transfer of technology to this country is
prohibited. Thus, one of the reasons why auditors do not use technology in some developing countries is the lack of access to tech
nology. Given the impact of subjective norms, technology providers should not just target auditors for technology acceptance but also
consider other relevant stakeholders. It is also worth noting that technology providers need to focus on enhancing auditors’ self-
efficacy in the usage of technology by providing a set of hands-on tips, instructional videos, and on-the-job training to use the tech
nology. Given the importance of firm readiness, especially in developing countries, auditing firms need to prepare the necessary
infrastructure and appropriate hardware and software equipment for technology adoption to enable the use of technology. Top
management needs to increase their commitment and readiness to invest in IT Infrastructures and provide training and support to audit
staff. Furthermore, the integration of IT specialists in audit teams can positively affect increasing the IT competence of auditors.
Professional accounting bodies, especially in developing countries, are expected to support and encourage auditors to use technology
in the audit process through guidance, standard-setting, training, and culture building.
Finally, our results should be of value and relevant to regulators and standard-setters in promulgating rules, regulations, and
standards for the use of technology by auditors. Barr-Pulliam et al. (2022) argue that uncertainty about the reaction of regulators and
19
inadequate guidance on technology adoption create hesitation in accepting audit technologies. Furthermore, Krieger et al. (2021) state
that some auditors perceive professional standards as a limiting factor for technology adoption. From the authors’ point of view,
auditing standards need to be upgraded in some cases. First, changes in standards are needed to reduce auditors’ concerns about the
adaptation of auditing based on technology with auditing standards. If auditors use technology and an audit failure occurs, their legal
liability increases and they may not be able to defend their professional judgment in potential lawsuits (Barr-Pulliam et al., 2022).
Furthermore, auditors can provide business insights and advisory services to clients by performing advanced analysis with the help of
technology, which is a violation of independence according to auditing standards. Appropriate changes in auditing standards can
reduce such concerns. Second, standard-setters should consider changes to audit methodology by revising auditing standards and
providing clear policy statements that lead to better use of technology. For example, the use of technology provides the possibility of
testing the complete population of complex transactions and balances; hence the sufficiency of the evidence may not be the main issue,
and the appropriateness of the evidence is considered a better measure to measure the quality of the audit evidence. Third, standard-
setters can take advantage of the capabilities of audit technologies and provide transparent standards and rules that can make the audit
process more accountable. The use of technology can develop the depth (using more diverse and accurate methods) and scope (100 %
transactions) of audit operations and make extraction and use of data much more reliable than manual processes. Therefore, auditors
can make judgments and decisions with more formal evaluation, more reliable evidence, and more certainty, and the possibility of
their accountability increases. Finally, given the importance of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and competence of au
ditors’ technology, we suggest that professional bodies and standard-setters consider technology capabilities as an essential skill for
future auditors and design strategies to increase auditors’ understanding and knowledge through training. Professional bodies,
standard-setters, and managers should be aware that the technology acceptance process differs depending on the type of user, the size
of the auditing firm, the kind of technology, and each country’s economic and cultural context.
7. Limitations and further research
This study has limitations that can be considered in future studies. First, not all studies related to accepting auditing technologies
are included in our work, as they do not provide the quantitative data required for meta-analysis. Combining qualitative studies is a
logical extension of this study. Future studies can reinforce the results or provide different results by including more studies and
techniques. Second, we include all available types of quantitative audit technology acceptance studies in our sample. Although the
separation of studies was done in subgroup analysis, it is suggested that future researchers conduct their meta-analyses only for in
ternal auditors or external auditors to examine each group more independently and accurately. In addition, conducting meta-analysis
only for small firms or large firms and developed countries or developing countries can provide more robust findings. Third, this study
uses factors tested in more than three studies and ignores less tested factors. This may not provide a complete picture of the factors
already identified in the acceptance of audit technologies, which future studies can address by systematic review and further expla
nation of each case.
Fourth, a number of the studies used in this meta-analysis have a relatively small sample size, which may negatively affect the
reliability of the effect size (Anderson et al., 2017). Since the minimum sample size was not determined to accept or reject a study, each
of these studies should be further analyzed separately. Therefore, generalizing the findings should be made with greater caution. Fifth,
general definitions of factors affecting acceptance may be interpreted differently in various studies, leading to variation in the factors
that fall into one category. Such variability probably affects the robustness of the results of this study and even challenges the com
parison of the same constructs from various studies. Therefore, it is recommended for future studies to review the theory contextu
alization process before conducting the research to increase unity in explaining the theories and structures of the audit technology
acceptance model.
Sixth, our study did not examine some moderating factors, such as age, experience, gender, and the number of auditors. Because
this study attempts to examine a wide range of main factors proposed in the previously presented models, which prevents the
consideration of all factors in a single model, it is suggested that future researchers be conducting their research in consideration of
these factors and other potential moderators. Given that the relationship between the rules and requirements for the use of auditing
technology and the acceptance process is of particular importance—and this study did not consider the difference between voluntary
or mandatory acceptance of technology—future research can examine whether there are significant differences between voluntary and
mandatory settings. Seventh, the Covid-19 pandemic as an environmental factor has significantly impacted the way audit tasks are
performed and has encouraged auditors to adapt to the virtual remote work environment. Future studies could examine the impact of
this pandemic on audit technology adoption depending on firm size and auditor type. Future studies can also identify audit standards
that inhibit or accelerate technology adoption and their needed changes for further adoption by considering the type of technology,
type of auditor, firm size, and regional differences in the post-pandemic era.
Eighth, this study shows that there are differences in the factors affecting the acceptance of technology by auditors in developed and
developing countries. Still, it is unclear to what extent these differences are related to the economic situation, technological infra
structure, culture, or other issues in these countries. Future studies can examine and compare the causes of these differences in
different countries. Finally, given that training has not been specifically considered in technology acceptance models, a limited number
of survey studies examine training as one factor of technology acceptance in auditing. Therefore, training in this study was not
separately considered. However, it is possible that this variable can affect the overall results, and it is suggested that training be given
special attention in future studies.
20
Table A1
List of studies included in the work.
Study Country Methods Sample User type Model(s) used perspective
Size
Individual Organizational
Schafer and Eining (2002) United survey 34 External TPB & TAM *
States Auditor
Bedard et al. (2003a) United survey 289 External PEOU *
States Auditor
Bedard et al. (2003b) United survey 153 External TAM *
States Auditor
Tangke (2004) Indonesia survey 38 External TAM *
Auditor
Curtis & Payne (2006) United experiment &case 139 External UTAUT *
States study Auditor
Bedard et al (2006) United survey 118 External TAM *
States Auditor
Huang et al. (2008) Taiwan survey 117 Internal TAM *
Auditor
Mahzan & Lymer (2008) UK interview & survey 95 Internal UTAUT *
Auditor
Curtis & Payne (2008) United experiment &case 139 External UTAUT *
Dowling (2009) Australia survey 569 External AST & TPB *
Auditor
Janvrin et al. (2009b) United survey 181 External UTAUT *
States Auditor
Kim et al. (2009) United survey 185 Internal TAM *
States Auditor
Pongpattrachai (2010) Thailand interview & survey 72 External – * *
Auditor
Suryandini (2010) Indonesia survey 66 External TAM *
Auditor
Diaz & Loraas (2010) United experiment 69 External UTAUT *
States Auditor
Bonsón and Borrero (2011) Spain survey 43 External TAM *
Auditor
Paledi (2011) South Africa survey 180 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Kok et al. (2011) Malaysia survey 89 External * *
Auditor
Razi & Madani (2012) Saudi Survey 55 External TAM *
Arabia Auditor
Gonzalez et al. (2012) United survey 234 Internal UTAUT *
States Auditor
Mahdavi & Karimi (2012) Iran survey 262 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Rosli et al. (2013) Malaysia survey 38 External TOE *
Auditor
Ahmi and Kent (2013) UK survey 205 External – * *
Auditor
Al-Ansi et al. (2013) Yemen survey 197 External – *
Auditor
Bierstaker et al. (2013) United survey 181 External UTAUT *
States Auditor
Ebimobowei et al. (2013) Nigeria survey 202 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Pedrosa & Costa (2014) Portugal survey 110 External – *
Auditor
Curtis & Payne (2014) United survey 75 External UTAUT *
States Auditor
Tijani (2014) Nigeria survey 159 Internal TOE *
Auditor
Chrisma & Kiswara (2014) Indonesia survey 46 External – *
Auditor
Nugraha & Laksito (2014) Indonesia survey 50 Internal TAM *
Auditor
Jeon (2014) Korea survey 214 External TAM *
Auditor
Ramen et al. (2015) Mauritius survey 581 External UTAUT & TOE & * *
Auditor TRI
Shamsuddin et al. (2015) Malaysia survey 108 TAM *
21
Table A1 (continued )
Size
Internal
Auditor
Pedrosa et al. (2015) Portugal interview & survey 110 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Purwantoro et al. (2015) Indonesia survey 71 External TAM *
Auditor
Kim & Jeon (2015) Korea survey 214 External TAM *
Auditor
Rosli et al. (2016) Malaysia survey 166 External TOE *
Auditor
Mansour (2016) Jordan survey 200 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Kim et al. (2016) Egypt survey 118 External TAM *
Auditor
Widya et al. (2017) Indonesia survey 102 External TPB & SCT *
Auditor
Alhabsi (2017) Oman interview & survey 260 Internal I-TOE * *
Auditor
Payne & Curtis (2017) United experiment &case 114 External TAM *
Shihab et al. (2017) Indonesia survey 141 External TAM *
Auditor
Darmaningtyas & Suardana Indonesia survey 73 External TAM *
(2017) Auditor
Mghizou & chafik (2017) France interview & survey 55 External TAM *
Auditor
Dharma et al. (2017) Indonesia survey 185 External TAM & IDT *
Auditor
Kusumadewi (2017) Indonesia survey 102 External TPB & SCT *
Auditor
Husain (2017) Indonesia survey 115 External TAM *
Auditor
Al_Khasawneh et al. (2017) Malaysia survey 181 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Abdul Aziz & Isa (2017) Malaysia survey 123 External TAM *
Auditor
Ojaide & Agochukwu (2017) Nigeria survey 127 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Chafik & Mghizou (2018) United survey 102 External TAM *
States Auditor
Li et al. (2018) United survey 209 Internal TOE *
States Auditor
Kholis & Prayogi (2019) Indonesia survey 90 External TAM *
Auditor
Saputro et al. (2019) Indonesia survey 150 External TAM *
Auditor
Sari & Rahman (2019) Indonesia survey 106 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Doğanay (2019) Turkey survey 85 External – *
Auditor
Bambang & Widya (2019) Indonesia survey 107 External TAM & TPB *
Auditor
Al-Hiyari (2019) Jordan survey 105 Internal UTAUT *
Auditor
Handoko et al. (2019) Indonesia survey 100 External TAM *
Auditor
Muneer et al. (2019) Pakistan survey 82 Internal – *
Auditor
Widuri et al. (2019) Indonesia survey 100 External TOE *
Auditor
Pedrosa et al. (2019) Portugal survey 100 External TAM *
Auditor
Sari (2019) Indonesia survey 109 External TAM & TPB *
Auditor
Tansil et al. (2019) Indonesia survey 100 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Siew et al. (2020) Malaysia survey 188 External TOE *
Auditor
22
Table A1 (continued )
Size
Khalil and Olfa (2020) Yemen survey 312 External UTAUT *

Auditor
Moradi and Rahmani Nia Iran survey 150 Internal TOE *
(2020) Auditor
Bozkurt and Çakmak (2020) Turkey survey 108 External TAM *
Auditor
Nguyen and Pedersen (2020) Norway survey 104 External TAM *
Auditor
Handoko et al. (2020) Indonesia survey 100 External TAM *
Auditor
Witte et al. (2020) United survey 48 External – *
States Auditor
Mlekus et al. (2020) Germany survey 281 External TAM *
Auditor
Normahazan and Mohamed Malaysia survey 96 External UTAUT *
(2020) Auditor
Dobrinić (2020) Croatia survey 111 External TAM & TOE * *
Auditor
Ferri et al. (2020) Italy survey 279 External TAM & UTAUT *
Auditor
Damanik et al. (2020) Indonesia survey 115 External TOE *
Auditor
Akashi (2020) Indonesia survey 60 External TAM *
Auditor
Rakipi et al. (2020) Italy survey 1681 Internal – *
Auditor
Damer et al. (2021) Jordan survey 72 External – *
Auditor
Daoud et al. (2021) Jordan survey 226 External TOE *
Auditor
Handoko et al. (2021) Malaysia survey 102 External TOE *
Auditor
Awuah et al. (2021) Ghana survey 75 Internal TOE *
Auditor
Kartikasary et al. (2021) Indonesia survey 74 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Albawwat & Frijat (2021) Jordan survey 124 External – *
Auditor
Ulfa (2021) Indonesia survey 34 External UTAUT *
Auditor
Al-Ateeq et al. (2022) Jordan survey 130 External TAM *
Auditor
8. Conclusion
This study represents the first meta-analysis that quantitatively combines and analyzes previous studies on auditors’ acceptance of
technology. A total of 88 studies and 21 relationships are analyzed. The most important factors influencing the acceptance of tech
nology in auditing are identified and presented in an integrated theoretical model. Our findings, in addition to confirming previous
technology acceptance models, suggest that the most effective factors in acceptance of technology in auditing from an individual
perspective are facilitating conditions, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. Furthermore, the most effective factors of
technology acceptance from an organizational perspective are technology cost-benefit, competitive pressure, firm readiness, and
matching technology-task, respectively. In addition, the results show that the country of origin, the type of user, the size of the auditing
firm, and the type of technology moderate the factors affecting the adoption of technology in auditing. Future studies can consider
contextualizing the use of technology acceptance theories in auditing and examining the modulating factors of model relationships.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
23
Acknowledgments
We thank the Senior Editor, the Associate Editor, and the two anonymous reviewers for providing thoughtful comments and
constructive suggestions to improve this study.
Appendix
References
Abdul Aziz, S., Isa, I., 2017. Interactive Data Extraction Analysis (IDEA): The Determinants of Behavioral Intention among Field Audit Officers in Putrajaya State
Director Office, IRBM. International Conference on Accounting Studies (ICAS). https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/24736/.
Ahmi, A., Kent, S., 2013. The utilisation of generalized audit software (GAS) by external auditors. Manag. Audit. J. 28, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02686901311284522.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 211 (50), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Akashi, T., 2020. Analisis Faktor-Faktor Penerimaan Aplikasi Sistem Audit Audit Tool And Linked Archive System (ATLAS) (Studi Empiris Pada Kantor Akuntan
Publik Di Jawa Timur). Sarjana thesis. Universitas Brawijaya. http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/183452/.
Al_Khasawneh, A.M., Kamil, S. Binti, Noor, I.B.M., 2017. Factors Affecting Adoption Of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques And Tools (Caats) Among External
Auditors In Jordan. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Manage. Res. 4 (2), 28–32.
Al-Ansi, A.A., Bin Ismail, N.A., Al-Swidi, A.K., 2013. The effect of IT knowledge and IT training on the IT utilization among external auditors: evidence from Yemen.
Asian Soc. Sci. 9 (10), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n10p307.
Al-Ateeq, B., Sawan, N., Al-Hajaya, K., Altarawneh, M., Al-Makhadmeh, A., 2022. Big data analytics in auditing and the consequences for audit quality: A study using
the technology acceptance model (TAM). Corporate Governance Org. Behav. Rev. 6 (1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgobrv6i1p5.
Albawwat, I., Frijat, Y., 2021. An analysis of auditors’ perceptions towards artificial intelligence and its contribution to audit quality. Accounting 7 (4), 755–762.
Alhabsi, A., 2017. Developing and Assessing the Drivers of Usage of Computer-Assisted-Audit-Techniques (CAATs) and the factors that impact Audit Quality
perceptions in Government Internal Audit. Doctoral thesis, DIT. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/busdoc/32/.
Al-Hiyari, A., 2019. Factors That Influence the Use of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (Caats) By Internal Auditors in Jordan. Acad. Acc. Financial Stud. J. 23 (3).
Alles, M.G., 2015. Drivers of the use and facilitators and obstacles of the evolution of big data by the audit profession. Acc. Horizons 29 (2), 439–449. https://doi.org/
10.2308/acch-51067.
Alles, M., Gray, G.L., 2016. Incorporating big data in audits: Identifying inhibitors and a research agenda to address those inhibitors. Int. J. Acc. Inf. Syst. 22, 44–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2016.07.004.
Anderson, S.F., Kelley, K., Maxwell, S.E., 2017. Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias
and uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 28 (11), 1547–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617723724.
AuditNet, 2012. Survey of More Than 1,500 Auditors Concludes That Audit Professionals Are Not Maximizing Use of Available Audit Technology.
Awuah, B., Onumah, J. M., Duho, K. C. T., 2021. Information Technology Adoption within Internal Auditing in Ghana: Empirical Analysis. Dataking Working Paper
Series N◦ WP2021-04-04. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3824403.
Bambang, H., Widya, K.A., 2019. Determinants of Behavioral Intentions towards Auditor Behaviors in Using Audit Information Technology: Modified Technology
Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior. Econ. Bus. 5 (23).
Banker, R.D., Chang, H., Kao, Y., 2002. Impact of information technology on public accounting firm productivity. J. Inf. Syst. 16 (2), 209–222. https://doi.org/
10.2308/jis.2002.16.2.209.
Baptista, G., Oliveira, T., 2016. A weight and a meta-analysis on mobile banking acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2016.05.074.
Baptista, G., Oliveira, T., 2019. Gamification and serious games: A literature meta-analysis and integrative model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 306–315. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.030.
Barr-Pulliam, D., Brown-Liburd, H.L., Munoko, I., 2022. The effects of person-specific, task, and environmental factors on digital transformation and innovation in
auditing: A review of the literature. J. Int. Finan. Manage. Acc. 33, 337–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12148.
Bedard, J.C. et al., 2003b. The Roles of Task and Technical Knowledge in Acceptance of Information Technology among Preparers and Reviewers of Audit
Workpapers.
Bedard, J.C., Ettredge, M.L., Jackson, C., Zehms, K.M., 2006. Knowledge, Experience and Work-Around Behaviors: Electronic Media in the Professional Audit
Environment. https://ssrn.com/abstract=934200.
Bedard, J.C., Jackson, C., Ettredge, M.L., Johnstone, K.M., 2003a. The effect of training on auditors’ acceptance of an electronic work system. Int. J. Acc. Inf. Syst. 4
(4), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2003.05.001.
Bierstaker, J., Janvrin, D., Lowe, D.J., 2013. What factors influence auditors’ use of computer-assisted audit techniques? Adv. Acc. 30, 67–74. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.adiac.2013.12.005.
Bonsón, E., Borrero, C., 2011. Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Adoption and Use of Continuous Audit Tools and Techniques: Comparison between the Public and
Private Sector. Int. J. Econ. Manage. Sci. 1 (3), 8–16.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., Rothstein, H.R., 2010. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth.
Methods 1 (2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12.
Bozkurt, O., Çakmak, N., 2020. Teknoloji Kabul Modeli Perspektifinden Bağımsız Denetçilerin Bilgisayar Destekli Denetim Programlarını Kullanıma Ilişkin Tutum Ve
Davranışlarının Potansiyel Fayda Beklentisi Üzerine Etkisi. BMIJ 8 (4), 607–646.
Braun, R.L., Davis, H.E., 2003. Computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: analysis and perspectives. Manag. Audit. J. 18 (9), 725–731. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02686900310500488.
Cao, M., Chychyla, R., Stewart, T., 2015. Big data analytics in financial statement audits. Account. Horiz. 29 (2), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51068.
Cardon, P.W., Marshall, B.A., 2008. National Culture and Technology Acceptance: The Impact of Uncertainty Avoidance. Issues Inf. Syst. 9 (2), 103–110.
Chafik, K., Mghizou, H., 2018. Study of the acceptance and effect of audit automation software used by financial auditors on the legal mission. Inf. Syst. Manage.
Innov. 2 (1).
Choi, J., Geistfeld, L.V., 2004. A cross-cultural investigation of consumer e-shopping adoption. J. Econ. Psychol. 25 (6), 821–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joep.2003.08.006.
Chrisma, Y., Kiswara, E., 2014. Pengukuran Terhadap Penggunaan Teknologi Informasi Audit Dan Persepsi Kegunaan. Diponegoro J. Account. 3 (3), 701–708.
Cook, T. D., 1991. Meta-analysis: Its potential for causal description and causal explanation within program evaluation. in: W. de Gruyter (Ed.). Social prevention and
the social sciences: Theoretical controversies, research problems, and evaluation strategies. 245–285. doi:10.1515/9783110864328.245.
24
Curtis, M.B., Payne, E.A., 2006. An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing. in:
AAA annual meeting and the 2006 Mid-South Doctoral Consortium.
Curtis, M.B., Payne, E.A., 2008. An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing. Int. J.
Account. Inf. Syst. 9 (2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2007.10.002.
Curtis, M.B., Payne, E.A., 2014. Modeling voluntary CAAT utilization decisions in auditing. Manag. Audit. J. 29, 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-07-2013-
0903.
Dagiliene, L., Kloviene, L., 2019. Motivation to use big data and big data analytics in external auditing. Manag. Audit. J. 34 (7), 750–782. https://doi.org/10.1108/
MAJ-01-2018-1773.
Damanik, A., Handayani, P.W., Pinem, A.A., 2020. The Barriers of IT Utilization: A Case Study of Indonesian Audit Organisation. in: International Conference on
Computer and Informatics Engineering.
Damer, N., Al-Znaimat, A.H., Hussein, A., Almansou, Z.A., 2021. Analysis Of Motivational Factors That Influence Usage Of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques
(Caats) By External Auditors In Jordan. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 20 (2).
Daoud, L., Mareib, A., Al-Jabaly, S.M., AldaaS, A., 2021. Moderating the role of top management commitment in usage of computer-assisted auditing techniques.
Accounting 7, 457–468. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2020.11.005.
Darmaningtyas, I.G.B., Suardana, K.A., 2017. Pengaruh Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) dalam Penggunaan Software Oleh Auditor yang Berimplikasi Pada
Kinerja Auditor. E-Jurnal Akuntansi 21 (21), 2448–2478.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/2632151.
Debreceny, R., Lee, S.-L., Neo, W., Toh, J.S., 2005. Employing generalized audit software in the financial services sector: challenges and opportunities. Manag. Audit.
J. 20 (6), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900510606092.
Dharma, D.P.B., Sandhyaduhita, P.I., Pinem, A.A., Hidayanto, A.N., 2017. Antecedents of intention-to-use of e-audit system: a case of the audit board of the republic of
Indonesia. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 26 (2), 185–204.
Diaz, M.C., Loraas, T., 2010. Learning new uses of technology while on an audit engagement: Contextualizing general models to advance pragmatic understanding.
Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 11, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2009.05.001.
Dillon, A., Morris, M., 1996. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Theories and Models. in: M. Williams (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology Medford NJ: Information Today 31, pp. 3–32. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/82513/.
DiMaggio, P., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (2),
147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
Dobrinić, D., 2020. Conceptual Model for Cloud Computing Acceptance in the Audit Profession. J. Alphabetically 53 (3), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.32914/i.53.3-4.6.
Doğanay, D., 2019. Identifying Factors Affecting Auditors’ Adoption Of Computer Assisted Audit Tools And Techniques (Caatts): An Empirical Investigation [Thesis].
(Master Of Science): The Department Of Information Systems.
Dowling, C., 2009. Appropriate audit support system use: The influence of auditor, audit team, and firm factors. Account. Rev. 84 (3), 771–810. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/27784194.
Ebimobowei, A., Ogbonna, G.N., Enebraye, P., 2013. Auditor’s Usage of Computer Assisted Audit Tools and Techniques: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria. Res. J.
Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 6 (2), 187–195.
Eilifsen, A., Kinserdal, F., Messier Jr, W.F., McKee, T., 2019. An exploratory study into the use of audit data analytics on audit engagements. SSRN Electron. J. 1, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3458485.
Elvik, R., 2011. Effects of mobile phone use on accident risk: Problems of meta-analysis when studies are few and bad. Transp. Res. Rec. 2236 (1), 20–26. https://doi.
org/10.3141/2236-03.
Ferri, L., Spanò, R., Ginesti, G., 2020. Ascertaining auditors’ intentions to use blockchain technology: evidence from the Big 4 accountancy firms in Italy. Meditari
Account. Res. ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2020-0829.
Fischer, M.J., 1996. “Real-izing” the benefits of new technologies as a source of audit evidence: an interpretive field study. Acc. Organ. Soc. 21, 219–242. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0361-3682(95)00005-4.
Gerow, J.E., Grover, V., Thatcher, J., Roth, P.L., 2014. Looking toward the future of IT-business strategic alignment through the past: A meta-analysis. MIS Q. 38 (4),
1159–1185. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26627966.
Gonzalez, G., Sharma, P.N., Galletta, D., 2012. The Antecedents of Internal Auditors’ Adoption of Continuous Auditing Technology: Exploring UTAUT in an
Organizational Context. in: 7th University of Waterloo Research Symposium on Information Integrity and Information Systems Assurance, Toronto, Canada.
Haddara, M., Kuan, L.S., Alkayid, K., Ali, M., 2018. Applications of Big Data Analytics in Financial Auditing- A Study on the Big Four. Twenty-fourth Americas
Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans, 1–10.
Hamari, J., Keronen, L., 2017. Why do people buy virtual goods: A meta-analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.042.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., 2015. Why do people use gamification services? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 35 (4), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006.
Handoko, B. L., Meiryani, A., Sabrina, S., Ayuanda, N., 2019. Admission of Information Technology in External Audit Profession: Impact of Organizational, Social and
Individual Factors. International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8843720.
Handoko, B.L., Thomas, G.N., 2021. How Audit Firm Size Moderate Effect of TOE Context toward Auditor Adoption of Technology. Turk. J. Comput. Math. Educ. 12
(6), 1518–1526. https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i6.2690.
Handoko, B.L., Lindawati, A.S.L., Mustapha, M., 2020. What Drive Auditor to Switch from Manual to Audit Software. Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med. 7 (8), 104–112. https://
ejmcm.com/article_2999.html.
Higgins J, Green S., 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Higgins, J., Thompson, S., Deeks, J., Altman, D., 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327 (7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.327.7414.557.
Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Mc-Graw Hill, London.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Huang, S.M., Hung, Y.-C., Tsao, H.-H., 2008. Examining the determinants of computer assisted audit techniques acceptance from internal auditors’ viewpoints. Int. J.
Serv. Standards 4 (4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSS.2008.020054.
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L., 2014. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage Publications.
Husain, T., 2017. Analisis Determinan Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Niat Penggunaan Software Audit. Jurnal Ilmiah Matrik 19 (2), 131–150.
Janvrin, D., Bierstaker, J., Lowe, D.J., 2008. An examination of audit information technology use and perceived importance. Account. Horiz. 22 (1), 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.2308/acch.2008.22.1.1.
Janvrin, D., Bierstaker, J., Lowe, D.J., 2009a. An investigation of factors influencing the use of computer-related audit procedures. J. Inf. Syst. 23 (1), 97–118. https://
doi.org/10.2308/jis.2009.23.1.97.
Janvrin, D., Lowe, D.J., Bierstaker, J., 2009b. Auditor acceptance of computer assisted audit techniques. In: American Accounting Association Auditing Mid Year
Meeting AAA, St Petersburg, FL, p. 1.
Jeon, S.C., 2014. A Study on Behavioral Intention and Application of Information Systems Audit Technology Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). J. Adv.
Navigation Technol. 18 (6), 609–618. https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201403359903468.page.
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., Angst, C., 2006. Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs. MIS Q. 30 (4) https://doi.org/10.2307/25148754.
Kartikasary, M., Laurens, S., Sitinjak, M., 2021. Factors affecting the use of generalized audit software in audit process in Indonesia. Accounting 7, 819–824.
Khalil, A.B., Olfa, N., 2020. Factors That Influence the Adoption of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) by External Auditors in Yemen. Int. J. Account.
Finan. Rep. 10 (2), 2162–3082.
25
Kholis, A., Prayogi, W., 2019. Analysis Acceptance of E-Audit Application on the Financial Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia in North Sumatera Regional
Office. in: Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, Proceedings of the 4th Padang International Conference on Education, Economics,
Business and Accounting.
Kim, H.J., Jeon, S.C., 2015. Study of the Acceptance of Interested Parties (Auditor /Auditee) in the Information System Audit Technologies Based Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM). J. Korea Acad.-Ind. Cooperation Society 16 (2), 1403–1413. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2015.16.2.1403.
Kim, H.J., Kotb, A., Eldaly, M.K., 2016. The use of generalized audit software by Egyptian external auditors: The effect of audit software features. J. Appl. Acc. Res. 17
(4), 456–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-2015-0079.
Kim, H.-J., Mannino, M., Nieschwietz, R.J., 2009. Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: impact of technology features and complexity.
Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 10, 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2009.09.001.
King, W.R., He, J., 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43 (6), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
Kok, C.H., Kee, P.L., Ping, A.L.H., Khalid, S.N.A., Yu, C.C., 2011. Determinants of Internet Adoption in Malaysian Audit Firms. In: International Conference on E-
business, Management and Economic IPEAR, pp. 302–307. http://www.ipedr.com/vol3/62-M10056.pdf.
Krieger, F., Drews, F., Velte, P., 2021. Explaining the (non-) adoption of advanced data analytics in auditing: A process theory. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 41 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.accinf.2021.100511.
Kusumadewi, A.W., 2017. Study on auditor’s attitude in using information technology for auditing: Theory of planned behavior and social cognitive theory
modification. Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci. 6 (66), 602–617.
Lee, C., Green, R.T., 1991. Cross-Cultural Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions Model. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 22 (2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8490304.
Li, H., Dai, J., Gershberg, T., Vasarhelyi, M., 2018. Understanding usage and value of audit analytics for internal auditors: an organizational approach. Int. J. Account.
Inf. Syst. 28, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2017.12.005.
Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B., 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Appl. Soc. Res. Methods 49, 1–247.
Lowe, D.J., Bierstaker, J.L., Janvrin, D.J., Jenkins, J.G., 2018. Information technology in an audit context: have the Big 4 lost their advantage? J. Inf. Syst. 32 (1),
87–107. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51794.
Mahdavi, G., Karimi, M., 2012. An Investigation in to Auditors’ Tendency toward using IT Achievements: external Auditors’ View. Am. J. Sci. Res. 80, 54–61.
Mahzan, N., Lymer, A., 2008. Adoption of computer assisted audit tools and techniques (CAATs) by internal auditors: Current issues in the UK. in: Proceedings of the
British Accounting Association Annual Conference. Blackpool, UK.
Mahzan, N., Lymer, A., 2014. Examining the adoption of computer-assisted audit tools and techniques: cases of generalized audit software use by internal auditors.
Manag. Audit. J. 29 (4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2013-0877.
Mahzan, N., Veerankutty, F., 2011. IT auditing activities of public sector auditors in Malaysia. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5 (5), 1551–1563.
Manita, R., Elommal, N., Baudier, P., Hikkerova, L., 2020. The digital transformation of external audit and its impact on corporate governance. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 150 (September 2019), 119751. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119751.
Mansour, E.M., 2016. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques in Audit Process: Findings from Jordan. Bus. Econ. Res. 6 (1), 248–271.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ber.v6i1.8996.
Mao, E., Srite, M., Bennett, T.J., Yaprak, O., 2014. A research model for mobile phone service behaviors: empirical validation in the U.S. and Turkey. J. Glob. Inf.
Manag. 8 (4), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2005.10856406.
Martens, D., Bruynseels, L., Baesens, B., Willekens, M., Vanthienen, J., 2014. Predicting going concern opinion with data mining. Decis. Support Syst. 45, 765–777.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.01.003.
Meredith, K., Blake, J., Baxter, P., Kerr, D., 2020. Drivers of and barriers to decision support technology use by financial report auditors. Decis. Support Syst. 139,
113–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113402.
Mghizou. H., Chafik. K., 2017. L’impact individual perçu d’un logiciel d’automatisation d’audit par les auditeurs financier marocains: resultats d’une enquête
exploratoire. Revue Économie, Gestionet Société 12. doi:10.48382/IMIST.PRSM/regs-v0i12.10711.
Mlekus, L., Bentler, D., Paruzel, A., Kato-Beiderwieden, A.L., Maier, G.W., 2020. How to raise technology acceptance: user experience characteristics as technology-
inherent determinants. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisation spsychologie (GIO) 51 (3), 273–283. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11612-020-00529-7.
Moradi, M., Rahmani Nia, E., 2020. The Impact of Organizational Factors Based on Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) Framework on Practical Levels and
Characteristics of Audit Analysis and Internal Audit Performance. European Journal of Business and Management Research 5 (4). doi:10.24018/
ejbmr.2020.5.4.261.
Muneer, S., Basheer, M.F., Shabbir, R., Zeb, A., 2019. Does Information Technology (IT) Expedite the Internal Audit System? Determinants of Internal Audit Effectives:
Evidence from Pakistani Banking Industry. Dialogue 14 (2), 145.
Nguyen, C.N., Pedersen, J.S., 2020. Revisors holdning til digitalisering i revisjon: En studie om revisors holdninger til digitaliseringen, og hvordan disse påvirker
implementeringen av digitalisering i revisjonsprosessen (Master’s thesis). University of Agder, Kristiansand. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2678742.
Normahazan, N., Mohamed, S., 2020. Drivers Contributing to the Implementation of Generalized Audit Software (GAS) within Audit Firms in Malaysia. Bus. Econ.
Res. 10 (2).
Nugraha, A., Laksito, H., 2014. Anteseden Penerimaan Teknologi Informasi dalam Profesi Audit Internal dengan Menggunakan Technology Acceptance Model (Studi
Empiris pada Bank Perkreditan Rakyat di Jawa Tengah). Diponegoro J. Account. 3 (2), 1–15. https://ejournal3.undip.ac.id/index.php/accounting/article/view/
6098.
Ojaide, F., Agochukwu, B.O., 2017. The effect of effort expectancy on computer-assisted audit techniques usage by external auditors in Nigeria. Int. J. Manage. Sci.
Res. 3 (1), 204.
Oliveira, T., Martins, M.F., 2010. Information technology adoption models at Firm Level: Review of literature. in: 4th European Conference on Information
Management and Evaluation ECIME (May). 312–322.
Paledi, V. N., 2011. Adoption Of Computer Aided Audit Techniques By Information Systems Auditors: Applying The Utaut Framework, [Thesis], (Master Of
Technology): The Faculty Of Information And Communication Technology.
Payne, E. A., Curtis, M. B., 2017. Factors Associated with Auditors’ Intention to Train on Optional Technology. Curr. Issues Audit. 11 (1). doi:10.2308/ciia-51564.
Pedrosa, I., Costa, C. J., 2014. Statutory auditors’ profile and computer assisted audit tools and techniques’ acceptance: indicators on firms and peers’ influence. in:
ISDOC’14 proceedings of the international conference on information systems and design of communication, May 16–17, Lisbon, Portugal. pp. 20–26. doi:
10.1145/2618168.2618172.
Pedrosa, I., Costa, C.J., Laureano, R.M., 2015. Motivations and limitations on the use of information technology on statutory auditors’ work: An exploratory study. In:
The 10th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies. IEEE, Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 1–6.
Pedrosa, I., Costa, C.J., Aparicio, M., 2019. Determinants adoption of computer-assisted auditing tools (CAATs). Cogn. Tech. Work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-
019-00581-4.
Pincus, K.S., Bernardi, R.A., Ludwig, S.E., 2003. Audit effectiveness versus audit efficiency: are the two in conflict? Int. J. Audit. 3 (2), 121–133. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1099-1123.00053.
Pongpattrachai, D., 2010. Thesis. In: The model of Infusion in small audit firms in Thailand. University of Canterbury, Thailand. https://doi.org/10.26021/5323.
Purwantoro, F., Purwandari, B., Shihab, M. R., 2015. E-audit system acceptance in the public sector: An Indonesian perspective. in: ICACSIS 2015-2015 International
Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems, Proceedings.
Rakipi, R., De Santis, F., D’Onza, G., 2020. Correlates of the internal audit function’s use of data analytics in the Big Data Era: Global evidence. J. Int. Account. Audit.
Tax. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2020.100357.
Ramen, M., Jugurnath, B., Ramhit, P., 2015. UTR-CTOE: a new paradigm explaining CAATs adoption. J Mod Account Audit. 11 (12), 615–631.
26
Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D., 2015. A meta-analysis of existing research on citizen adoption of e-government. Inf. Syst. Front. 17 (3), 547–563. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9431-z.
Razi, M., Madani, H., 2012. An analysis of attributes that impact adoption of audit software: an empirical study in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Account. Inf. Manag. 21 (2),
170–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/18347641311312320.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. Free Press, New York.
Rosli, K, Yeow, P and Eu-Gene, S., 2013. Adoption of audit technology in audit firms, in: Hepu Deng and Craig Standing (ed.) ACIS: Information systems: Transforming
the Future: Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, Australia, 4-6 December, pp. 1–12. https://aisel.aisnet.org/
acis2013/43/.
Rosli, K., Yeow, P.H., Siew, E.G., 2012. Factors influencing audit technology acceptance by audit firms: A new I-TOE adoption framework. J. Account. Audit.
Rosli, K., Siew, E., Yeow, P.H.P., 2016. Technological, organisational and environmental aspects of audit technology acceptance. Int. J. Bus. Manage. 11 (5), 140–145.
Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., Chowa, C., 2006. Information system success: Individual and organizational determinants. Manag. Sci. 52 (12), 1849–1864. https://doi.
org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0583.
Salijeni, G., Samsonova-Taddei, A., Turley, S., 2019. Big Data and changes in audit technology: contemplating a research agenda. Acc. Bus. Res. 49 (1), 95–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2018.1459458.
Saputro, B.F.T., Trisno, M., Manalu, G., 2019. The effect of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and complexity upon the acceptance of computerized audit
tehnique (ACAT) at the Finance and Development Supervisory Agency (FDSA) Republic of Indonesia. Account. J. BINANIAGA 4 (1), 15–26. https://doi.org/
10.33062/ajb.v4i01.310.
Sari, N.P.E.K., 2019. The Determinant Of Auditor’s Interest In Using Computer Assisted Audit Technique Tools (Caatt): The Modified Technology Acceptance Model
(Tam) And Theory Of Planned Behavior (Tpb). Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Feb. 7 (2).
Sari, D. P., Rahman, A., 2019. Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Minat Pemanfaatan Teknologi Informasi bagi Auditor. Journal of Economic, Business and
Accounting 2 (2), 202–211. doi:10.31539/costing.v2i2.562.
Schafer, B.A. and Eining, M.M., 2002. Auditor’s adoption of technology: a study of domain experts”, in: paper presented at American Accounting Association 2002
Meeting in San Diego.
Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., 2007. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Inform. Manage. 44 (1),
90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007.
Shamsuddin, A., Rajasharen, L., Maran, D., Ameer, M.F.M. and Muthu, P., 2015. Factors Influencing Usage Level of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) by
Internal Auditors in Malaysia. in: Paper presented at the 6th Kuala Lumpur International Business, Economics and Law Conference, Malaysia, 18–19 April.
Shihab, M.R., Meilatinova, N., Hidayanto, A.N., 2017. Determinants of CAATT acceptance: insights from public accounting firms in Indonesia. in: Proceeding of the
4th information systems international conference, Procedia Comput. 522–529. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.185.
Siew, E.-G., Rosli, K., Yeow, P.H., 2020. Organizational and environmental influences in the adoption of computer-assisted audit tools and techniques (CAATTs) by
audit firms in Malaysia. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 36, 100445 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100445.
Simon, B., 2001. Knowledge media in the education system: acceptance research in universities. WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wien, Austria,
p. 179.
Suryandini, D., 2010. Aplikasi model penerimaan teknologi dalam penggunaan software audit oleh duditor. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi 2 (2), 92–102.
Taherdoost, H., 2018. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf. 22, 960–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2018.03.137.
Tahriri, A., Afsay, A., 2021. A Meta-Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Behavior of Auditors to Acceptance of Information Technology. J. Value Behav. Account. 6
(11), 1–40. http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-977-en.html.
Tangke, N., 2004. Analisa Penerimaan Penerapan Teknik Audit Berbantuan Komputer (TABK) dengan Menggunakan Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) pada
Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) RI. Jurnal Akuntansi Keuangan 6 (1), 10–28.
Tansil, A., Widuri, R., Gui, A., Ali, M.M., 2019. Generalised Audit Software use by external auditor: An empirical examination from UTAUT. Int. J. Innov., Creativity
Change.
Tao, D., Wang, T., Wang, T., Zhang, T., Zhang, X., Qu, X., 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis of user acceptance of consumer-oriented health information
technologies. Comput. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.023.
Tiberius, V., Hirth, S., 2019. Impacts of Digitization on Auditing: A Delphi Study for Germany. J. Int. Account. Audit. Tax. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intaccaudtax.2019.100288.
Tijani, O.M., 2014. Built-In Functions and Features of Data Analysis Software: Predictors of Optimal Deployment for Continuous Audit Assurance. Sch. J. Econ. Bus.
Manag. 1 (1), 7–18.
Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M., 1990. The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington MA.
Ulfa, A., 2021. Persepsi Auditor Keuangan Pada Penggunaan Teknik Audit Berbantuan Komputer. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi 5 (3), 297–307.
Vasarhelyi, M. A., Alles, M. G., 2008. Reengineering business reporting creating a test bed for technology driven reporting. http://www.uhu.es/ijdar/10.4192/1577-
8517-v8_5.pdf.
Vasarhelyi, M.A., Romero, S., 2014. Technology in audit engagements: a case study. Manag. Audit. J. 29 (4), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-06-2013-0881.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46, 186–204. https://doi.
org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 (3), 425–478. https://doi.
org/10.2307/30036540.
Widuri, R., Handoko, B. L., Prabowo, I. C., 2019. Adoption of Information Technology in Public Accounting Firm. in: Proceedings of the 2019 4th International
Conference on Big Data and Computing. 198–202. doi:10.1145/3335484.3335500.
Widuri, R., O’Connell, B., Yapa, P.W., 2016. Adopting generalized audit software: an Indonesian perspective. Manag. Audit. J. 31 (8/9), 821–847. https://doi.org/
10.1108/MAJ-10-2015-1247.
Widya, K. A., Zaki, B., Bambang, H. (2017). Study on auditor’s attitude in using information technology for auditing: Theory of planned behavior and social cognitive
theory modification. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences 6 (6). doi:10.18551/rjoas.2017-06.29.
Witte, A., Thibodeau, C., Earley, E., 2020. Managing the Technological Revolution: How Audit Partners Nurture. Control, Standardize Change Electron. J. 21 (1)
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3627650.
Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., Zheng, H., 2011. A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation of moderating influence of
subject and context type. Int. J. Inform. Manage. 31 (6), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.03.004.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., 2005. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e business by organisations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information
Systems Research 16 (1), 61–84. 10.1287.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K., Xu, S., 2003. Electronic business adoption by European firms: a cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 12
(4), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000475.
27

1 s2.0 S1467089522000604 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S1467089522000604 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 49 (2023) 100608

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Accounting

A meta-analysis of factors affecting acceptance of information

2. Institutional background and literature review

2.1. Auditing technologies

Fig. 1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). (Davis et al., 1989).

Fig. 2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2). (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).

2.2. Theories of technology acceptance

Fig. 4. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). (Ajzen, 1991).

Fig. 5. Technology-Organization-Environment framework (TOE). (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990).

2.3. Literature review

Fig. 6. Studies’ search and selection procedures.

3.2. Surveyed studies

Fig. 8. Classification of countries of origin studies used in meta-analysis.

Fig. 9. Theories applied in studies used in meta-analysis.

Fig. 10. Separation of studies based on type of perspective and country.

3.3. Data extraction and analysis

Developed Developing External Internal

Traditional Advanced Non-Big 4 Big 4 Before 2013 After 2013

4.1. Subgroup analysis

External Internal Before 2013 After 2013

(continued on next page)

External Internal Before 2013 After 2013

cost-benefit (0.163), respectively.

Fig. 11. Theoretical model based on meta-analysis results.

7. Limitations and further research

Khalil and Olfa (2020) Yemen survey 312 External UTAUT *

Declaration of Competing Interest

Data will be made available on request.

You might also like