Determinants of Professional Scepticism among AccountingStudents: ‎The Moderating Role of University Engagement

  • Authors

    • Nur Dafina Afiqah Mohd Yassin Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Puncak Alam, ‎Malaysia
    • Erlane K Ghani Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Puncak Alam, ‎Malaysia
    • Kamaruzzaman Muhammad Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Puncak Alam, ‎Malaysia
    • Razana Juhaida Johari Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Puncak Alam, ‎Malaysia
    • Akrom Omonov Turon University Andijan Branch, Uzbekistan
    https://doi.org/10.14419/zrqpmr97

    Received date: January 22, 2026

    Accepted date: February 16, 2026

    Published date: May 17, 2026

  • Professional Scepticism; Sceptical Mindset; Sceptical Attitude; University Engagement; Accounting ‎Education; Malaysia

  • Abstract

    Professional scepticism is a critical attribute for future accountants because it underpins sound ‎audit judgment and ethical decision-making (IAASB, 2022). However, recent concerns raised ‎by the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA, 2020) and the Committee to Strengthen the ‎Accountancy Profession (CSAP, 2014) indicate that many accounting graduates lack the ‎sceptical disposition required by the profession. Drawing on Hurtt’s (2010) model of ‎professional scepticism, this study investigates the influence of two major domains which are ‎sceptical mindset that consists of questioning mind, search for knowledge and suspension of ‎judgement, and sceptical attitude that consists of self-determination, self-confidence and ‎interpersonal understanding on the level of professional scepticism among accounting students. ‎Furthermore, this study introduces university engagement as a moderating variable and ‎proposes that active academic and co-curricular participation strengthens the relationship ‎between students’ sceptical traits and their professional scepticism. This study will employ a ‎quantitative research design using survey data collected from final-year accounting students at a ‎Malaysian public university. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) ‎will be applied to test the hypothesised relationships and to examine the moderating effect of ‎university engagement. The findings are expected to contribute to theory by extending Hurtt’s ‎‎(2010) model within the context of Malaysian higher education and to practice by offering ‎insights for universities and policymakers to enhance professional scepticism development ‎through curriculum design and student engagement strategies‎.

  • References

    1. Adhikara, M. F. A., & Widodo, A. M. (2023). Public accountant professional skepticism behavior in improving audit quality: A path analysis. JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 20(2), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.31106/jema.v20i2.20616.
    2. Amiruddin, A., & Adang, F. (2023). Influence of professional skepticism and adherence to code of ethics on fraud disclosure. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research and Studies, 2(3), 45–59.
    3. Apostolou, B., Dorminey, J. W., Hassell, J. M., & Rebele, J. E. (2013). Accounting education literature review (2010–2012). Journal of Accounting Education, 31(2), 107–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2013.03.001.
    4. Asare, S. K., & Wright, A. M. (2012). The effect of type of internal control report on users’ confidence in the accompanying financial statement audit report. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 152–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01080.x.
    5. Asare, S. K., Wright, A. M., & Zimbelman, M. (2020). How does professional skepticism affect fraud brainstorming quality? [Discussion of profes-sional skepticism traits impacting audit brainstorming].
    6. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529
    7. Audit Oversight Board (AOB). (2023). Annual Report 2023. Securities Commission Malaysia.
    8. Awaluddin, M., Nirgahayu, N., & Wardhani, R. S. (2019). The effect of expert management, professional skepticism, and professional ethics on audi-tors’ detecting ability with emotional intelligence as modelling variable (Study at the Makassar City Inspectorate). International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics (IJIBEC), 3(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.28918/ijibec.v3i1.1567.
    9. Bandiyono, A. (2021). Professional scepticism in audit judgment: Case of judgment bias and time pressure. International Journal of Economics, Busi-ness and Accounting Research, 5(1), 20–28.
    10. Bonner, S. E., & Pennington, N. (1991). Cognitive processes and knowledge as determinants of auditor expertise. Journal of Accounting Literature, 10, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491243.
    11. Burke, K. M., Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Rifenbark, G. G. (2019). Self-determination research: current and future directions. Behavioral Sciences, 14(7), Article 613. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14070613.
    12. Ciołek, D. (2018). Questioning mind as a trait: Its development in business students. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 15, 189–202.
    13. Cheng, P. Y., & Chiou, W. B. (2010). Achievement, attributions, self‑efficacy, and goal setting by accounting undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 106(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.106.1.54-64.
    14. Committee to Strengthen the Accountancy Profession. (2014). Strengthening the accountancy profession in Malaysia: Report of the Committee to Strengthen the Accountancy Profession (CSAP.
    15. Dimase, C. (2019). The role of information seeking behavior in audit performance. Journal of Accounting and Auditing Studies, 4(2), 88–101.
    16. Fabiańska, M., Mazur, J., & Stankiewicz, B. (2021). Scepticism and emotional intelligence in professional judgment. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 22(2), 138–149.
    17. Fatmawati, A., Mustikarini, R., & Fransiska, A. (2018). The Influence of Professional Scepticism and Auditor Competence on Fraud Detection. Jour-nal of Auditing Research, 10(1), 45-60.
    18. Garrels, V., & Palmer, S. B. (2019). Student‑directed learning: A catalyst for self‑determination and academic achievement for students with intellectu-al disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 24(3), 174462951984052. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629519840526.
    19. Ghani, I., Ilias, N., Muhammad, K., & Mohd Ali, A. (2022). Professional Scepticism and Fraud Detection Among Auditors in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives, 15(1), 75-90.
    20. Ghozali, I., & Latan, H. (2015). Partial Least Squares: Konsep, Teknik dan Aplikasi menggunakan SmartPLS 3.0. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Univer-sitas Diponegoro.
    21. Gissel, J. L. (2018). Professional skepticism: Practitioners’ perceptions and training practices. Review of Business Information Systems, 22(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.19030/rbis.v22i2.10224.
    22. Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS‑SEM). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    23. Hammersley, J. S. (2011). A review and model of auditor judgments in fraud-related planning tasks. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(4), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-10145.
    24. Hardies, K., Breesch, D., & Branson, J. (2016). Do (fe)male auditors impair audit quality? Evidence from Belgium. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 43(3–4), 423–448.
    25. Harding, N., & Trotman, K. T. (2017). The effect of partner communications of fraud likelihood and skeptical orientation on auditors’ professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51576.
    26. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Jour-nal, 20(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7.
    27. Hurtt, R. K. (2010). Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.149.
    28. Hurtt, R. K., Brown-Liburd, H., Earley, C. E., & Krishnamoorthy, G. (2013). Research on auditor professional skepticism: Literature synthesis and opportunities for future research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(Supplement 1), 45–97. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50361.
    29. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2009). ISA 200: Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with International Standards on Auditing.
    30. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2018). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assur-ance, and Related Services Pronouncements.
    31. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2021). Focus on Professional Skepticism. https://www.iaasb.org.
    32. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2022). International standard on auditing (ISA) 200: Overall objectives of the independent auditor and the conduct of an audit in accordance with international standards on auditing. New York: IFAC. Retrieved from https://www.iaasb.org.
    33. Kadous, K., & Zhou, Y. (2019). How does intrinsic motivation improve auditor judgment in complex audit tasks? Contemporary Accounting Re-search, 36(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12431.
    34. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.
    35. Knechel, W. R., Vanstraelen, A., & Zerni, M. (2013). Does the identity of engagement partners matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting deci-sions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(4), 1441–1470.
    36. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308.
    37. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090.
    38. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283.
    39. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
    40. Kusumawati, A., & Syamsuddin, S. (2018). Professional scepticism and audit judgment: An experimental study. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 8(4), 185–192.
    41. Malaysian Institute of Accountants. (2020). Competency framework for professional accountants in Malaysia.
    42. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2021). Hala Tuju 4: Program akademik perakaunan di Malaysia. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
    43. Murtanto, A., Lestari, K., & Santoso, I. (2023). Auditor competence, independence, professional skepticism, and fraud detection skills: The moderat-ing role of audit experience. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 802–815.
    44. Nelson, M. W. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.1.
    45. Ningsih, N., Kusumawati, A., & Imran, H. (2022). Roles of professional skepticism and whistleblowing on the influence of task complexity on audi-tor’s ability to detect fraud. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 7(6), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.6.1754.
    46. Nolder, C. J., & Kadous, K. (2018). Grounding professional skepticism in mindset and attitude theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 67, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010.
    47. Noviyanti, S., & Winata, L. (2015). The effectiveness of teaching methods and the auditor’s professional scepticism. Asian Review of Accounting, 23(3), 246–268.
    48. Perdana, R. (2023). Investigating the link between attitude and scepticism in audit practice. Journal of Contemporary Accounting Research, 5(1), 12–28.
    49. Peytcheva, M., & Warren, J. D. (2022). Skepticism and cognitive bias: Examining auditors’ reliance on evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 41(1), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-19-112.
    50. Pham, T. T. (2024). The effect of knowledge-seeking behaviour on audit judgment quality: Evidence from Vietnam. Asian Review of Accounting, 32(1), 55–78.
    51. Popoola, O. M. J., Che-Ahmad, A., & Samsudin, R. S. (2015). Forensic accountants, auditors and fraud: Capability and competence requirements in the Nigerian public sector. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), 136–144.
    52. Popova, V. (2023). Critical thinking and judgment quality in auditing. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 35(1), 99–120.
    53. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2012). Staff Audit Practice Alert No. 10: Maintaining and Applying Professional Skepti-cism in Audits.
    54. Putra, R. F., Hasanah, U., & Kusuma, P. (2023). The maturity of judgment skills among novice auditors: A case study. Accounting Education, 32(2), 130–148.
    55. Putri, R. M., & Ghozali, I. (2021). The influence of individual characteristics and professional skepticism on auditor judgment. Journal of Accounting and Strategic Finance, 4(2), 163–180.
    56. Quadackers, L., Groot, T., & Wright, A. (2014). Auditors’ professional skepticism: A literature review and model development. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(1), 147–164.
    57. Rahim, F. (2019). Inquiry-based learning and its impact on sceptical thinking in audit education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 35–55.
    58. Rasso, J. T. (2015). Discussion of “Audit inquiry: Meeting the information needs of financial statement users.” Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 403–410.
    59. Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo‑Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603913.
    60. Rose, J. M. (2007). Attention to evidence of aggressive financial reporting and intentional misstatement judgments: Effects of experience and trust. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2007.19.1.215.
    61. Sayed Hussin, S. M., Iskandar, T. M., & Saleh, N. M. (2017). Professional scepticism and auditors’ assessment of misstatement risks: The moderating role of experience. Malaysian Accounting Review, 16(1), 29–44.
    62. Sayed Hussin, S. M., Nordin, N., & Abdullah, A. (2022). Suspension of judgment and audit effectiveness in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 15(2), 155–178.
    63. Shaub, M. K., Finn, D. W., & Munter, P. (1993). The effects of auditors’ ethical orientation on commitment and ethical sensitivity. Behavioural Re-search in Accounting, 5, 145–169.
    64. Shaub, M. K., & Lawrence, J. E. (1996). Ethics, experience and professional scepticism: A situational analysis. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 124–157.
    65. Siriwardane, H. P., Low, K. Y., & Samkin, G. (2014). Is professional scepticism influenced by personal traits? Australian Accounting Review, 24(4), 360–374.
    66. Trotman, K. T., & Duncan, K. (2018). Professional scepticism and audit outcomes. Accounting & Finance, 58(2), 505–535.
    67. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy.
    68. Widyaningsih, A., Putri, R. A., & Prasetyo, W. (2022). The effect of sceptical traits on audit quality: Evidence from Indonesian accounting students. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, 26(1), 21–33.
    69. Yustina, L., & Sutarsa, I. N. (2020). Time pressure and the development of judgment skills among accounting students. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 8(2), 120–129.
    70. Zinke, J. (2021). Objectivity and scepticism in audit tasks: The importance of delaying judgment. Journal of Auditing Research, 29(3), 77–94.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Yassin, N. D. A. M. . ., Ghani , E. K. ., Muhammad , K. ., Johari , R. J. ., & Omonov, A. . . (2026). Determinants of Professional Scepticism among AccountingStudents: ‎The Moderating Role of University Engagement. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 13(2), 629-644. https://doi.org/10.14419/zrqpmr97