The relationship between auditors’ workload, experience, gender, and going-concern opinions
Published: October 16, 2026
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between auditors’ experience, workload, and gender and the issuance of going-concern opinions (GCOs) for listed companies in Vietnam. A quantitative research approach is employed using binary logistic regression. The findings provide no evidence of a significant relationship between auditors’ experience, workload, or gender and GCOs. However, the results indicate that audit firm size and listed company size are associated with the issuance of GCOs. Specifically, auditors working for Big Four audit firms are more likely to issue GCOs than those working for non-Big Four firms, while larger listed companies are less likely to receive GCOs.
Abadi, K., Purba, D. M., & Fauzia, Q. (2019). The impact of liquidity ratio, leverage ratio, company size and audit quality on going concern audit opinion. Jurnal Akuntansi Trisakti, 6(1), 69-82.
2.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York. https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/human-capital-theoretical-and-empirical-analysis-special-reference-education-first-edition
3.
Berglund, N. R. (2015). Managerial ability and the going concern opinion (Doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University.
4.
Brooks, M. R. (2014). Essays examining the association between going concern audit opinions, subsequent earnings management and engagement office audit and reporting quality. The University of Texas at San Antonio (R), https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12588/2859
5.
Carey, P., & Simnett, R. (2006). Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The accounting review, 81(3), 653-676.
6.
Chin, C. L., & Chi, H. Y. (2008, August). Gender differences in audit quality. In 2008 American Accounting Association annual meeting. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1149405
7.
DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183-199.
8.
Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 451.
9.
Geiger, M. A., & Rama, D. V. (2006). Audit firm size and going - concern reporting accuracy. Accounting Horizons, 20(1), 1-17.
10.
Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics-damodar. Gujarati: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Gul, F. A., Ma, S. M., & Lai, K. (2017). Busy auditors, partner-client tenure, and audit quality: Evidence from an emerging market. Journal of International Accounting Research, 16(1), 83-105.
12.
Gul, F. A., Srinidhi, B., & Tsui, J. (2013). Female auditors and audit quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3), 1197-1224
13.
Hapsoro, D., & Santoso, T. R. (2018). Does audit quality mediate the effect of auditor tenure, abnormal audit fee and auditor's reputation on giving going concern opinion? International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(1), 143-152.
14.
Hardies, K., Breesch, D., & Branson, J. (2014). Gender differences in audit quality. European Accounting Review, 23(3), 403-436.
15.
Knechel, W. R., & Vanstraelen, A. (2007). The relationship between auditor tenure and audit quality implied by going concern opinions. AUDITING: A journal of practice & theory, 26(1), 113-131
16.
Lennox, C. S. (1999). The accuracy and incremental information content of audit reports in predicting bankruptcy. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 26(5‐6), 757-778.
17.
Nelson, M., & Tan, H. T. (2005). Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 24(s-1), 41-71.
18.
Sundgren, S., & Svanström, T. (2014). Auditor‐in‐charge characteristics and going‐concern reporting. Contemporary accounting research, 31(2), 531-550.
19.
Šušak, T., & Stapić, I. (2025). Does Gender Matter in Audit? Evidence on Earnings Management and Audit Delay from Croatia. Business Systems Research: International journal of the Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, 16(2), 219-239.
