Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2, 413-424 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 27 November 2024; Revised: 20 January 2025; Accepted: 21 January 2025; Published: 29 January 2025 * Correspondence: anhtuancpa@gmail.com The impact of accountability pressure and time budget on the quality of audit services of independent auditors Nguyen Thi Thu Hien1, Dang Anh Tuan2* 1,2Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; nguyenthuhien@iuh.edu.vn (N.T.T.H.) anhtuancpa@gmail.com (D.A.T.). Abstract: Audit quality has always been a top priority in conducting audit work, as it is essential for maintaining stakeholder trust and addressing its complexities. This study examines how various auditor characteristics impact audit service quality. Primary data were collected in 2024 through a survey of 110 auditors working at independent audit firms, and the data were analyzed using SPSS 28 statistical software. The results indicate that auditor competence, independence, accountability, and time budget pressure all have a significant effect on audit service quality. Among these, auditor competence emerges as the most influential factor, followed closely by independence and accountability. This finding emphasizes the importance of competence and independence in ensuring high-quality audit work within a complex professional environment. Additionally, accountability and time budget pressure serve as catalysts that can influence whether the quality of work is high or low. From a practical perspective, these results suggest the need to enhance the quality of audit professionals and to implement mechanisms that ensure auditors maintain their independence. Keywords: Audit time budget pressure, Auditor accountability, Auditor independence, Auditor, Auditor capacity, Quality of audit services. 1. Introduction The quality of auditing and the factors influencing audit quality have always been subjects of vigorous debate in academic forums and media, especially following major corporate bankruptcies or financial frauds globally [1]. According to Francis [2] there is still no consensus on defining or measuring audit quality. DeAngelo [3] even argued that audit quality cannot be directly observed, making it difficult to measure accurately and objectively. Hence, the profession often proposes common standards to evaluate audit quality. By definition, audit quality is achieved when an auditor can identify material misstatements by applying Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Principles (GAAP) that help to ensure the accuracy of the auditor’s actions and report [4]. The effective and efficient application of GAAP in the auditing activities of auditors depends on professional competence, independence, professional judgment, a skeptical attitude, the auditor’s risk assessment, and the quality of audit evidence [5]. These factors directly influence audit quality and help ensure its effectiveness. Meanwhile, factors that negatively impact audit quality have been highlighted in previous research, such as low or abnormal audit fees and limited audit performance outcomes, which adversely affect audit quality [6]. The presence of these factors indicates lower audit quality evidence. From a cognitive perspective, a straightforward approach to achieving audit quality is to maintain and strengthen the factors that directly and positively influence audit quality while minimizing or eliminating those that negatively affect it. Audit failures still occur even when auditors fully meet and comply with professional standards. This undermines public trust in the auditing profession [7]. Consequently, perceptions of audit quality are also influenced and change over time. Therefore, the https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6623-7153 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8754-2811 414 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate criteria and metrics used to measure audit quality must also evolve to reflect accurately what stakeholders expect from audit quality. The results of empirical studies indicate that auditor characteristics such as professional competence, independence, a skeptical attitude, risk assessment outcomes, and the quality of audit evidence influence the assurance of audit quality. However, the impact of the following factors on audit quality yields mixed results: (i) the audit environment (including accountability pressure, time budget pressure, audit committee, and legal framework) and (ii) client characteristics (such as the auditor-client relationship, the significance of the client, and the audit tenure) [8]. Moreover, most studies on audit quality utilize measurement indicators related to audit outputs, such as the quality of financial reporting, the type of audit opinion, audit failures, and the quality of client earnings in developed countries. Therefore, this study aims to confirm the influence of individual auditor characteristics on the quality of audit services in the context of accountability pressure. These results contribute to enriching the debate on the determinants of audit quality based on the measurement of audit service quality. 2. Literature Review Auditors' professional reputations always depend on stakeholders' trust, which is based on audit quality. Audit quality remains the most important audit requirement [5, 9]. Although initiatives from regulatory bodies and professional organizations influence the understanding and perception of audit quality, none have defined this term precisely. From a professional perspective, audit quality is defined as compliance with professional standards [8]. This definition is based on the assumption that full adherence to professional standards will enable auditors to issue accurate audit opinions, thereby ensuring audit quality. However, this does not explain two typical cases: (i) professional standards may be limited as they do not meet the reasonable expectations of users of audit reports, and (ii) audit opinions may be inaccurate even while auditors fully comply with professional standards [7]. One of the widely recognized definitions of audit quality was provided by DeAngelo [3]. He stated that audit quality is the probability that a certain auditor will (i) detect misstatements in the client's accounting system and (ii) report those misstatements. According to this definition, audit quality depends on two factors: (i) the auditor's competence/capability to "detect misstatements" and (ii) the auditor's independence/objectivity to be willing to "report misstatements." Although this analytical framework clearly understands audit quality, it does not indicate the differing expectations of users of audit reports regarding audit quality. Furthermore, the public finds it challenging to accurately assess the quality of audit work due to a lack of corresponding expertise. Therefore, the impact of audit outputs on the trust of users of audit reports is widely recognized by researchers as a common measure for evaluating audit quality. According to Francis [2] audit quality ultimately depends on the quality of the audited financial statements. In this context, audit quality is measured based on two criteria: (i) when an auditor issues a "clean" audit opinion while the audited financial statements contain material misstatements or fraud, and (ii) when an auditor issues a "clean" opinion but the company subsequently files for bankruptcy within 12 months from the date of the audit report. Francis [1] provides a useful model that can be viewed as a comprehensive framework for analyzing and assessing audit quality. It describes the factors influencing and the relationships among them concerning audit quality, following a process from the micro (inputs) to the macro (outputs) level to examine the factors affecting audit quality, similar to the subsequent analytical frameworks of IAASB [10] and PCAOB [11]. However, this analytical framework does not explain why, in practice, there can be instances of an "incorrect" audit report even when the auditor has conducted the audit in accordance with professional standards. The limitations of Francis [1] analytical framework include its failure to consider (i) the psychological-behavioral factors of auditors (accountability), (ii) economic factors, such 415 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate as the application of professional judgment in the risk assessment model [12] and (iii) social factors, including the public's unreasonable expectations [13]. Furthermore, the analytical frameworks of Francis [1] and IAASB [10] do not provide criteria for eliminating "incorrect" audit reports. Regarding the criteria and methods for measuring audit quality, Francis [2] notes that most empirical studies use a binary variable (correct/incorrect) to measure audit quality; however, this does not always accurately reflect the actual outcomes. He suggests that audit quality should be viewed as a continuous variable that ranges from "low" to "high". At the same time, it is necessary to minimize biased assessments of audit quality due to the unreasonable expectations of the public [13]. According to Francis [2] measuring audit quality by including the impact of audit outputs on the trust of clients and actual users is essential. Some common measures that determine the trust of audit clients include perceptions of reliability and satisfaction based on the audit firm's perceived independence, professionalism, and reputation. Based on this approach, the evaluation of audit quality must be contextualized within the quality of audit services provided to users. According to Sutton [14] there is no singular, universally accepted definition of audit quality or audit service quality due to the differing roles and perspectives among stakeholders, such as (i) external users, (ii) audit clients, and (iii) auditors. Thus, while audit quality focuses on input factors, the audit process, and audit outcomes [1] to ensure that the audit meets its objectives and complies with professional standards, audit service quality emphasizes the experience and satisfaction of clients during the provision of audit services and the impact of audit results on public trust. From the above analysis, we identify the attributes of audit service quality used as measures, which include: • Achieving audit objectives [1, 10]; • Meeting professional standards requirements [4, 10]; • Stakeholder satisfaction, such as meeting the needs of clients and users of audit reports [1] • Reliable and useful audited financial reports: Meeting the public's reasonable expectations by detecting fraud and assessing the client's ability to continue as a going concern [2, 9]. 2.1. Auditor Competence and Audit Service Quality Personal competence is composed of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In auditing, auditor competence is specified as knowledge, skills (experience and analytical skills), and a professional skepticism attitude [15]. Accordingly, the higher the auditor's competence, the higher the audit quality [16]. Auditor competence enables them to properly execute audit procedures, maintain independence, and have the fortitude not to compromise on regulatory violations, delivering high-quality audit results. The research results of Christensen, et al. [17] indicate that investors place importance on auditor competence, viewing it as a key indicator of high-quality audit services. Similarly, Rajgopal, et al. [18] affirmed that competence is a standard for auditors to perform audit tasks accurately. According to Putria and Mardijuwonob [15] competent auditors provide higher-quality audit services, enhancing financial statement reliability. The positive relationship between auditor competence and audit quality has also been found in the results of most studies [19, 20]. Therefore, we formulate the research hypothesis: H1: Auditor competence positively influences the quality of audit services provided by audit firms in Vietnam 2.2. Auditor Independence and Audit Service Quality Tepalagul and Lin [8] assert that auditor independence is crucial because it directly impacts audit quality. In agreement, Putria and Mardijuwonob [15] notes that auditors must be independent and not subject to any influence from clients in their audit activities or in reporting audit findings. Independence represents objectivity in forming audit opinions. Therefore, ethical principles require auditors to be independent in mindset, form, and professional competence to ensure that audit opinions are objective and reliable. Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the positive impact of auditor independence 416 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate on audit quality, even when certain threats to auditor independence arise, such as providing non-audit services or facing time pressure [21]. When auditors maintain their independence, they can make assessments and conclusions objectively, free from external factors such as client pressure or personal interests. This helps ensure that audit reports accurately reflect the enterprise's financial situation, thereby enhancing the reliability and transparency of financial information. Therefore, we propose the research hypothesis: H2: Auditor independence positively influences the quality of audit services provided by audit firms in Vietnam. 2.3. Auditor Accountability and Audit Service Quality Accountability refers to diverse and complex relationships [22] and is understood and defined differently depending on the context [23]. Due to this complexity, there are many differing perspectives on the essence of accountability within the academic community. For instance, accountability is described as the interactive exchange between the accountable party regarding certain decisions and actions to the party to whom accountability is owed, along with the representative’s capacity for remedy and punishment [24]. Accountability is commonly defined in auditing research as “…the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one’s beliefs, feelings or actions to others” [25]. Research in auditing often examines accountability pressure on auditors concerning their judgment ability, the quality of auditor decisions, and audit outputs. Findings from several studies indicate that accountability can positively influence auditor inputs by increasing cognitive effort, enhancing the identification of more useful audit procedures [26] and improving auditor performance [27]. Furthermore, accountability also influences auditors’ decisions and performance and certain decision characteristics. However, the effects of accountability are not always positive [28]. Similarly, Roohbakhsh and Kazemzadeh [29] argue that accountability improves the performance of auditors and facilitates the objective execution of audit tasks. This encourages auditors to conduct their work more thoroughly, minimizing fraudulent errors and enhancing independence. The studies by Furiady and Kurnia [16] and Zahmatkesh and Rezazadeh [19] provide evidence that accountability influences audit quality. When accountability pressure is present, it improves overall audit quality [28]. Therefore, we establish the hypothesis: H3: Accountability pressure positively influences the quality of audit services provided by audit firms in Vietnam. 2.4. Time Budget Pressure and Audit Service Quality Time budget pressure refers to the time constraints arising from commitments due to allocating time resources to perform tasks. Audit firms always consider this factor, along with audit quality, when selecting their audit strategies [30]. Time budgets are intended not only to improve employees' work performance but also significantly affect audit costs, as many of these costs arise from the time spent on audits [31]. According to stakeholder and legitimacy theories, compliance with professional standards and adherence to ethical principles remain a top challenge under time pressure. This is because the allocated time affects the cognitive effort of auditors in designing and executing audit procedures [26] thereby impacting audit performance and quality. Time pressure, along with auditor competence, influences audit quality but in different directions, especially in the context of the auditing profession. From an individual perspective, some auditors may view time pressure as a motivation to focus on critical audit issues, thereby increasing their ability to make quality professional judgments and audit decisions. Research by Coram, et al. [32] and Sweeney and Pierce [33] indicates that time pressure positively affects audit quality. However, the study by Calocha and Herwiyanti [34] found no statistically significant evidence, while Broberg, et al. [35] presented contrary results, providing evidence that time pressure may lead to decreased audit quality because auditors do not have sufficient time to conduct audits prudently and meet professional standards. Therefore, we propose the research hypothesis: 417 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate H4: Time budget pressure in auditing positively influences the quality of audit services provided by audit firms in Vietnam. 3. Methodology Research Data: The study uses a convenient sampling method to access and collect research data easily. The survey targets practicing auditors in audit firms approved to conduct audits for public interest entities. To collect data, we adopt measurement scales from previous studies (Table 1) to ensure the validity and reliability of the scales and to compare results across different studies in varying contexts. The survey questionnaire is designed to include demographic information and consists of 20 scales measuring four independent variables and one dependent variable. We use a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree. Table 1. Description of variables. No Variables Symbol Measurement scale Research Independent variable 1 Auditor competency AC1 Capability Lumban Gaol [36] AC2 Knowledge AC3 Skill/experience AC4 Attitude 2 Auditor independency AI1 Client importance, Tepalagul and Lin [8] AI2 Non-audit services, AI3 Auditor tenure AI4 Client affiliation with audit firms 3 Auditor accountability AA1 Willing to work in the interest of users Overman, et al. [22] AA2 have to comply with diligently and carefully AA3 Be accountable to the users of the audit report AA4 sufficient legimacy to oversee/evaluate audit work AA5 Sufficient expertise to oversee/evaluate audit work 4 Time budget pressure TBP1 Timeliness Lumban Gaol [36] TBP2 Target completion TBP3 Time limit burden Dependent variable 1 Audit service quality ASQ1 Achieve audit objectives Francis [1] and IAASB [10] ASQ2 Comply with professional standards [4] and IAASB [10] ASQ3 Stakeholder satisfaction by meeting the needs of clients and users of audit reports Francis [1] ASQ4 Reliable and useful audited financial statements Dung [9] Primary data was collected from September to December 2024 using a questionnaire sent to 200 auditors in various positions, resulting in 110 valid responses (a response rate of 55%). The number of reactions meets the criteria of being five times the number of observed variables, making it suitable for analysis [37]. Research Process: After collecting, processing, and cleaning the data, we conduct descriptive statistical analysis to provide an overview of the key characteristics of the research data, including gender, educational background, experience, job position, and professional certifications of the auditors. To achieve the research objectives, we perform (i) reliability assessment of the scales through Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, (ii) exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the validity of the scales and variables after extraction, (iii) Pearson correlation analysis, and (iv) multivariate regression analysis and model fit testing. 418 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Research Model: Building on previous studies and aiming to evaluate the influence of various factors on audit service quality, we propose a research model from the auditor's perspective consisting of four independent variables: (i) auditor competence, (ii) auditor independence, (iii) auditor accountability, and (iv) time budget pressure, with the dependent variable being audit service quality. The proposed research model (Figure 1) is as follows: Figure 1. Research model. 4. Research Results and Discussion 4.1. Descriptive Statistics The data shown in Table 2 indicate that 60% of the research participants are female, while 40% are male. All participants have at least a university degree. The breakdown of their educational background includes 77 auditors (70%), 17 audit team leaders (15%), 12 audit managers (11%), and 4 audit directors (4%). Most participants have at least 1 year of work experience. The survey includes a diverse group of individuals with various positions and experience levels. Table 2. Descriptive statistics. Characteristics Sample (N=110) Quantity Percentage (%) Gender Male 45 41 Female 65 59 Total 110 100 Degree Bachelor 93 88 Master 17 12 Total 110 100 Experience Less than 1 year 13 12 From 1 – less than 3 years 51 47 From 3 – less than 5 years 17 15 From 5 – less than 10 years 12 11 10 years and over 17 15 Total 110 100 Job title Auditor 77 70 Senior auditor 17 15 Audit manager 12 11 Director of auditing 4 4 Total 110 100 419 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.2. Analysis Results The reliability test results of the measurement scales (Table 3) indicate that Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients are greater than 0.6 for all scales. Furthermore, the correlation coefficients with the total variable are all greater than 0.3. Therefore, the measurement scales for the factors ensure reliability. Table 3. Results of the reliability test for the measurement scales. Model Cronbach's alpha value Independent variable Auditor competence 0.857 Auditor independence 0.822 Auditor accountability 0.864 Time budget pressure 0.748 Dependent variable Audit service quality 0.801 After testing the reliability of the measurement scales, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to assess the validity of the scales. The KMO and Bartlett’s Test showed a value of 0.782 < 1, suitable for factor analysis, and the significance level Sig. = 0.000 < 0.05 indicates that the variables are correlated within the overall dataset [37]. The total variance explained by the four independent variables is 68.2% > 50%, and the eigenvalues of the factors are all > 1, while the variance explained for the dependent variable is 62.72. Therefore, the factor analysis method is appropriate. The results in Table 4 indicate 16 measurement scales associated with the four independent variables. Table 4. EFA results for independent variables. Potated Component Matrixa Variables Component 1 2 3 4 AC1 0.818 AC2 0.803 AC3 0.794 AC4 0.791 AA4 0.819 AA3 0.807 AA2 0.803 AA5 0.782 AA1 0.771 AI3 0.855 AI1 0.846 AI2 0.794 AI4 0.743 TBP2 0.812 TBP3 0.790 TBP1 0.787 The Pearson correlation coefficients in Table 5, all with Sig. < 0.05, indicate a linear correlation between the independent and dependent variables. 420 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients. Variables ASQ AC AI AA TBP ASQ 1.000 0.641 0.537 0.416 0.319 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AC 0.641 1.000 0.360 0.070 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.464 0.394 AI 0.537 0.360 1.000 -0.023 -0.016 0.000 0.000 0.814 0.869 AA 0.416 0.070 -0.023 1.000 0.329 0.000 0.464 0.814 0.000 TBP 0.319 0.082 -0.016 0.329 1.000 0.001 0.394 0.869 0.000 The model has an R² value of 0.836 and an adjusted R² of 0.687 (Table 6). This indicates that the independent variables explain 68.7% of the variation in the dependent variable. Additionally, the Durbin-Watson statistic is 1.962, which falls within the acceptable range of [1, 3]. This suggests that there is no first-order autocorrelation, indicating that the statistical assumptions have not been violated. Table 6. Model summary. Model summaryb Model R R square Adjusted R square Std. error of the estimate Change statistics R Square change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change Durbin- Watson value 1 0.836a 0.699 0.687 0.29838 0.699 60.830 4 105 0.000 1.962 The regression estimation results presented in Table 7 show that four factors—auditor competence (AC), auditor independence (AI), auditor accountability (AA), and time budget pressure (TBP)—all have a positive and significant impact on audit service quality (ASQ) at the 5% significance level (Sig. < 0.05). Additionally, all variance inflation factor (VIF) values range from 1.125 to 1.163, indicating that there are no multicollinearity issues among the variables in the model. Table 7. Regression analysis results. Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. Collinearity statistics B Std. error Tolerance VIF (Constant) -0.393 0.296 -1.326 0.188 AC 0.409 0.051 0.467 8.074 0.000 0.860 1.163 AI 0.301 0.046 0.379 6.593 0.000 0.867 1.154 AA 0.238 0.041 0.334 5.871 0.000 0.889 1.125 TBP 0.120 0.039 0.177 3.116 0.002 0.887 1.127 4.3. Discussion The reliability test, measurement scale validity, and regression model indicate that the independent variables significantly and positively impact the dependent variable. As a result, all four research hypotheses are supported by the data. This finding reveals that audit service quality is primarily influenced by four factors, ranked in decreasing order of importance: auditor competence, auditor independence, auditor accountability, and time budget pressure. Auditor Competence: With a statistical significance level of 1% (Sig. = 0.000) and a coefficient β = 0.467, hypothesis H1 is supported. This result is consistent with the studies of Christensen, et al. [17]; 421 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Zahmatkesh and Rezazadeh [19] and Nguyen, et al. [20] which state that auditor competence enables auditors to properly execute audit processes, maintain independence, and enhance their analytical, judgment, and decision-making abilities, leading to higher audit quality. This result implies that to improve the quality of the audit workforce, especially in the context of digital transformation, audit firms must focus on continuously updating knowledge, skills, and training through practical situations to enhance the capabilities of auditors. Auditor independence: The results strongly support hypothesis H2, with a statistical significance level of 1% (Sig. = 0.000) and a coefficient (β) of 0.379. These findings align with the studies conducted by Yakubu and Williams [21] and Tepalagul and Lin [8] which suggest that auditor independence enables the delivery of objective audit opinions. This independence is crucial for ensuring audit quality, even when auditors face significant client pressure, tight deadlines, or potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, when audit quality is prioritized, and auditors are motivated in an environment that emphasizes professional independence, they are more likely to enhance their professional skills and achieve a sense of self-esteem. This improvement ultimately leads to higher quality audit work and helps maintain the overall standard of audit services based on professionalism and reputation. Auditor accountability: A statistical significance level of 1% (Sig. = 0.000) and a coefficient (β) of 0.334 support hypothesis H3. This finding aligns with studies by Furiady and Kurnia [16]; Zahmatkesh and Rezazadeh [19]; Roohbakhsh and Kazemzadeh [29] and Donnelly [28] all of which confirm that accountability positively influences how auditors conduct their audit procedures. It leads to increased effort, more thorough testing, and a more critical evaluation of evidence. When accountability pressure is present, overall audit quality improves. However, this finding contrasts with research by Koonce, et al. [38] which indicated that accountability does not affect auditors' decisions. Additionally, Donnelly [28] noted that when auditors are aware of user demands, the pressure to conduct either an ineffective or overly efficient audit may compromise audit quality. Time budget pressure: With a statistical significance level of 1% (Sig. = 0.002) and a coefficient β = 0.177, hypothesis H4 is supported. This result is consistent with the findings of Coram, et al. [32] and Sweeney and Pierce [33] which show that time budget pressure positively impacts audit quality. However, it contrasts with the research results of Broberg, et al. [35] and Aswar, et al. [39] which acknowledge that with limited time and anticipated client demands, auditors may lack diligence or fail to perform sufficient audit procedures to gather enough appropriate audit evidence. 5. Conclusion This study aims to identify and measure the factors influencing audit service quality. Unlike previous studies that focused on inputs, processes, or audit outputs to measure audit quality, this research identifies the factors that determine audit service quality based on auditor characteristics. This new approach minimizes biases associated with using various measurement indices for audit quality. The research results indicate that two critical factors ensuring audit service quality are auditor competence and auditor independence. The factors of accountability and time budget pressure determine the level of quality on a scale from "low" to "high." Theoretically, this finding supports the viewpoint that personal factors (competence, independence) are decisive in ensuring audit service quality in professions providing knowledge-based services such as auditing. Meanwhile, factors such as pressure (accountability and time budget) will determine the level of audit quality. Practically, to enhance the quality of audit services in audit firms in Vietnam, audit firms should regularly update knowledge and training through practical audit scenarios to help auditors improve their skills and professionalism. Additionally, to promote the positive roles of accountability and time pressure, it is necessary to establish mechanisms to maintain auditor independence, enhance auditors' work performance, and ensure audit service quality. 422 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not- for-profit sectors. Ethics Statement: Review and/or approval by an ethics committee was not necessary for this study because it was based on a proprietary database, and no personal information of the participants was used and participants voluntarily provide information without pressure or risk; it does not require ethical approval. Declaration of Interests: 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 Statement: Data that support findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Author Contributions: Nguyen Thi Thu Hien and Dang Anh Tuan contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] J. R. Francis, "A framework for understanding and researching audit quality," Auditing: A journal of Practice & Theory, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 125-152, 2011. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50006. [2] J. R. Francis, "What exactly do we mean by audit quality?," Accounting in Europe, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 123-133, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2247410 [3] L. E. DeAngelo, "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 183-199, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1. [4] A. Tuovila, "Generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). Investopedia," Retrieved: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gaas.asp. [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020], 2019. [5] K. I. AL-Qatamin and Z. Salleh, "Audit quality: A literature overview and research synthesis," IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 56-66, 2020. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-2202025666 [6] Z. Liu, S. Hua, X. C. Sun, and J. Yu, "Auditor bargaining power and audit fee lowballing," Advances in Business Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 81-89, 2016. [7] N. N. K. Dung and A. T. Dang, "The study of audit expectation gap: The auditor’s responsibilities in a financial statement audit in Vietnam," Asian Economic and Financial Review, vol. 9, no. 11, p. 1227, 2019. https://10.18488/journal.aefr.2019.911.1227.1254 [8] N. Tepalagul and L. Lin, "Auditor independence and audit quality: A literature review," Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 101-121, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X14544505 [9] N. N. K. Dung, "Factors affecting risk-based audit and quality audit," Emerging Science Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 957- 971, 2024. https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2024-08-03-010 [10] IAASB, A framework for audit quality: Key elements that create an environment for audit quality. International auditing and assurance standards board. New York: IAASB, 2014. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50006 https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2247410 https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gaas.asp https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-2202025666 https://10.0.72.56/journal.aefr.2019.911.1227.1254 https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X14544505 https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2024-08-03-010 423 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [11] PCAOB, Concept release on audit quality indicators. Washington, DC: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2015. [12] M. DeFond and J. Zhang, "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 58, no. 2- 3, pp. 275-326, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002 [13] H. A. H. Dang and C. V. Nguyen, "Gender inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Income, expenditure, savings, and job loss" World Development, vol. 140, p. 105296, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105296 [14] A. P. Sutton, Electronic structure of materials. Tokyo: Clarendon Press, 1993. [15] R. Putria and A. W. Mardijuwonob, "The effect of competence, work experience, professionalism, and auditor independence on audit quality," International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1-12, 2020. [16] O. Furiady and R. Kurnia, "The effect of work experiences, competency, motivation, accountability and objectivity towards audit quality," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 211, pp. 328-335, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.042 [17] B. E. Christensen, S. M. Glover, T. C. Omer, and M. K. Shelley, "Understanding audit quality: Insights from audit professionals and investors," Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1648-1684, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12212. [18] S. Rajgopal, S. Srinivasan, and X. Zheng, "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 559-619, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-020-09570-9 [19] S. Zahmatkesh and J. Rezazadeh, "The effect of auditor features on audit quality," Tékhne, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 79-87, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tekhne.2017.09.003 [20] L. A. Nguyen, M. Kend, and H. Luong, "Audit quality and independence concerns after major audit reforms within a developing country: stakeholder perceptions from Vietnam," Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 314-335, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-03-2022-3475 [21] R. Yakubu and T. Williams, "A theoretical approach to auditor independence and audit quality," Corporate Ownership and Control, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 124, 2020. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv17i2art11. [22] S. Overman, T. Schillemans, and S. Grimmelikhuijsen, "A validated measurement for felt relational accountability in the public sector: Gauging the account holder’s legitimacy and expertise," Public Management Review, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1748-1767, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1751254 [23] M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, and T. Schillemans, The Oxford handbook Public accountability. London: Oxford University Press, 2014. [24] M. Bovens, "Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework 1," European Law Journal, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 447-468, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x [25] J. S. Lerner and P. E. Tetlock, "Accounting for the effects of accountability," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 255-275, 1999. [26] T. DeZoort, P. Harrison, and M. Taylor, "Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 31, no. 4-5, pp. 373-390, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.09.001. [27] S. K. Asare, G. M. Trompeter, and A. M. Wright, "The effect of accountability and time budgets on auditors' testing strategies," Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 539-560, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1506/F1EG- 9EJG-DJ0B-JD32 [28] A. Donnelly, "Three studies examining accountability in auditing," Retrieved: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5358. [Accessed 2017. [29] Z. Roohbakhsh and F. Kazemzadeh, "Audit quality based on auditor features," SRPH Journal of Applied Management and Agile Organization, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1-9, 2021. https://10.47176/sjamao.3.4.1 [30] Global Audit Quality Report, "Ernst & young global Ltd," Retrieved: https://www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/assurance/global-audit-quality-report. [Accessed 2024. [31] C. McNair, "Proper compromises: The management control dilemma in public accounting and its impact on auditor behavior," Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 635-653, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361- 3682(91)90017-9 [32] P. Coram, J. Ng, and D. R. Woodliff, "The effect of risk of misstatement on the propensity to commit reduced audit quality acts under time budget pressure," Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 159-167, 2004. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2004.23.2.159. [33] B. Sweeney and B. Pierce, "Audit team defence mechanisms: auditee influence," Accounting and Business Research, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 333-356, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2011.559575 [34] R. Calocha and E. Herwiyanti, "Factors that affect audit quality," Journal of Contemporary Accounting, pp. 35-48, 2020. https://doi.org/10.20885/jca.vol2.iss1.art4 [35] P. Broberg, T. Tagesson, D. Argento, N. Gyllengahm, and O. Mårtensson, "Explaining the influence of time budget pressure on audit quality in Sweden," Journal of Management & Governance, vol. 21, pp. 331-350, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-016-9346-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105296 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.042 https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12212 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-020-09570-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tekhne.2017.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-03-2022-3475 http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv17i2art11 https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1751254 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.09.001 https://doi.org/10.1506/F1EG-9EJG-DJ0B-JD32 https://doi.org/10.1506/F1EG-9EJG-DJ0B-JD32 https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5358 https://10.0.184.72/sjamao.3.4.1 https://www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/assurance/global-audit-quality-report https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90017-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90017-9 https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2004.23.2.159 https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2011.559575 https://doi.org/10.20885/jca.vol2.iss1.art4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-016-9346-4 424 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 2: 413-424, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4496 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [36] M. B. Lumban Gaol, "Time budget pressure, auditor locus of control and audit quality reduction behavior," in Time Budget Pressure, Auditor Locus Of Control And Audit Quality Reduction Behavior: Lumban Gaol, Manatap Berliana, 2019, pp. 1-10. [37] J. F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, and J. A. Mena, "An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 40, pp. 414-433, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6. [38] L. Koonce, U. Anderson, and G. Marchant, "Justification of decisions in auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 369-384, 1995. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491493 [39] K. Aswar, F. G. Akbar, M. Wiguna, and E. Hariyani, "Determinants of audit quality: Role of time budget pressure," Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 308, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.25 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 https://doi.org/10.2307/2491493 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.25