AI Adoption and Audit Quality in Public Survey and Firm Inspection Data

Authors

  • Yanjun Liu College of International Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China
  • Xiaohang Li School of Economics and Management, Beihua University, Jilin, Jilin, 132013, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/39t12g83

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Audit Quality, Secondary Data, Measurement Validity, Audit Inspection, Reproducibility

Abstract

This study evaluates the association between AI-related questionnaire scores and audit-quality perceptions and examines what that association can establish about audit firms. A secondary analysis uses 98 respondent records and 25 items released by Handoko (2025). Equal-weight block scores are analysed using ordinary least squares, HC3 uncertainty estimates, rank correlations, alternative scoring, item-omission checks and row resampling. The AI–AQ correlation is 0.819. The AI coefficient is 0.735 in the unadjusted model and 0.731 after adjustment for four additional questionnaire blocks, with a 95% HC3 interval of 0.523–0.939. However, the AI–AQ heterotrait–monotrait ratio is 0.903, and several other block pairs exceed 1.00. Strong internal consistency therefore coexists with weak empirical separation. A separate descriptive analysis of UK Big Four inspection reports records 190 satisfactory or limited-improvement outcomes across 223 inspection instances in three cycles. These outcomes are not linked to the questionnaire respondents or to matched AI expenditure. The contribution is a reproducible assessment of the gap between observable association and an investment-effect claim. The evidence supports a positive association in the released questionnaire matrix, while neither its construct validity nor a causal return to firm-level AI expenditure is established.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002

[2] Fedyk, A., Hodson, J., Khimich, N., & Fedyk, T. (2022). Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process? Review of Accounting Studies, 27, 938–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09697 x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09697-x

[3] Financial Reporting Council. (2025a). Deloitte LLP audit quality inspection and supervision. https://media.frc.org.uk/documents/Deloitte_LLP_Audit_Quality_Inspection_and_Supervision_2025.pdf.

[4] Financial Reporting Council. (2025b). Ernst & Young LLP audit quality inspection and supervision. https://media.frc.org.uk/documents/Ernst__Young_LLP_Audit_Quality_Inspection_and_Supervision_2025.pdf.

[5] Financial Reporting Council. (2025c). KPMG LLP audit quality inspection and supervision. https://media.frc.org.uk/documents/KPMG_LLP_Audit_Quality_Inspection_and_Supervision_2025.pdf.

[6] Financial Reporting Council. (2025d). PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP audit quality inspection and supervision. https://media.frc.org.uk/documents/PricewaterhouseCoopers_LLP_Audit_Quality_Inspection_and_Supervision_2025.pdf.

[7] Handoko, B. L. (2025). Artificial intelligence adoption for sustainable audit quality in non big four accounting firm (Version 1) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15034566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IRASET64571.2025.11008328

[8] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747 014 0403 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

[9] Law, K. K. F., & Shen, M. (2025). How does artificial intelligence shape audit firms? Management Science, 71(5), 3641–3666. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.04040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.04040

[10] MacKinnon, J. G., & White, H. (1985). Some heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 29(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304 4076(85)90158 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90158-7

[11] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021 9010.88.5.879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

[12] Rajgopal, S., Srinivasan, S., & Zheng, X. (2021). Measuring audit quality. Review of Accounting Studies, 26, 559–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142 020 09570 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-020-09570-9

[13] Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336 008 9101 0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0

[14] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Downloads

Published

28-10-2026

Issue

Section

Articles