The Moderating Role of Auditor Experience on Determinants of Computer-Assisted Auditing Tools and Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study indicates that internal auditors need to fully adopt CAATs to improve the efficiency of auditing tasks. This paper investigates the determinants influencing CAAT adoption among internal auditors in Jordanian firms. This study investigates the roles of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions on the adoption of CAATs. Also, this study investigates the moderating variable of auditor experience. The data were collected using a survey that was sent to 420 internal auditors in auditing firms in Jordan. A total of 291 responses were collected, of which 279 proved to be valid for study. This study found that the adoption of CAATs is influenced by performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, and auditor experience. Conversely, effort expectancy has no influence. Furthermore, auditor experience moderates the relationship between performance expectancy and facilitating conditions for CAAT adoption. This study found that auditor experience does not moderate the relationship between effort expectancy or social influence and CAATs in auditing firms in Jordan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".