Theory of planned behavior is a theory of further development of reason action thoery which was initiated by Fishbein dan Ajzen (1975). Theory of planned behavioris a theory proposed byAjzen (1985). This theory explains the causes of behavioral motivation which consists of three indicators, namely Attitude towards behavior, Subjectuve norm, Perceived behavior control.

According to DeAngelo (1981) An auditor's ability to identify and disclose major misstatements in the financial statements based on their independence and skill is known as audit quality. The auditor must adhere to the relevant Auditing Standards (SA) in order to guarantee the highest possible audit quality of a financial report. Aspects of audit quality are expressly regulated by the following standards:

Sulistiyo (2020) says that everyone who manages a profession has to have a certain mindset known as a professional code of ethics. Since everyone in a community might adopt different attitudes that are deemed desirable based on their presumptions about interacting in society, the code of ethics must be mandatory for all members of the profession. According to IAPI (2021) Five fundamental principles make up the Indonesian public accountants' code of ethics (KEPAP), which is a set of moral guidelines developed in accordance with the criteria of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC):

1.Principle of integrity 2.Principle of objectivity

3.Principles of Professional Competence and Prudence 4.Principle of Confidentiality

5.Professional Principles

According to Ghosh & Moon, (2005) The amount of audit tenure is spends working with a specific client is known as the audit tenure. A longer audit tenure can help to improve the quality of the audit since it allows the auditor to have a deeper understanding of the client's operations. In the Public Accountant Code of Ethics (KEPAP) 2021 in seksi 540 It is mentioned that the threat of intimacy and the threat of self-interest might occur when a person participates in an audit engagement for a long time. Long-term relationships as a member of the audit team might pose a threat to intimacy, even while knowledge of the audit client and its surroundings is essential to audit quality:

A shift in public accounting firms is known as "audit firm rotation." In Indonesia, public accounting firms are only permitted to audit a company's financial statements for a maximum of three years in a row (Fierdha et al., 2021). According to Astrini & Muid (2013) audit firm rotation have two characteristics, specifically mandatory and voluntary.

The audit fee is the amount that the auditor will be paid for the audit services rendered, and it is determined by the outcome of the agreement between the auditee and the auditor in the employment contract. However, the auditor is not permitted to rely on the client's viewpoint when calculating the audit fee (Arens et al., 2017).

H1: Code of Ethics has a positive effect on audit quality. H2: Audit Tenure has a positive effect on audit quality

H3: Audit firm rotation has a positive effect on audit quality. H4: Audit fee has a positive effect on audit quality

H5: Audit fees are able to strengthen the influence of the code of ethics on audit quality.

H6: Audit fees are able to strengthen the effect of audit tenure on audit quality H7: Audit fees are able to strengthen the effect of audit rotation on audit quality.

The population used in this study were all auditors who worked at the Public Accounting Firm (KAP) and public accountants. In this study, the sampling method to be used is non-probability sampling with the sampling technique used in this study is purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is the collection of data and information needed based on certain characteristics that are considered relevant to the research (Sekaran & Bougie, 2017). The criteria that will be used in selecting samples in this study are as follows:

Public accountants or auditors who participate in professional training programs (PPL) are given questionnaires as part of the questionnaire method, which is the data gathering approach employed in this study. This study's data came from original sources.

Data Analysis Tools One kind of multivariate analysis that was employed in this study was structural equation modeling, or SEM. The Partial Least Square (PLS) versions are the foundation of the SEM analysis approach, which is tested using the WarpPLS 8.0 application (Sholihin & Ratmono, 2021).

Cronbroach alpha and composite reliability approaches were employed in this study's reliability test. It demonstrates that the composite reliability value and Cronbroach alpha for every construct in this study are more than 0.70. This demonstrates that every construct in this study satisfies the requirements of the reliability test.

Source: Data processed by researchers, 2025 Diskriminan ValidityTest

Diskriminan ValidityTest

Source: Data processed by researchers, 2025

By contrasting the correlation between construct variables with the root of the average variance extracted (AVE), discriminant validity is assessed. demonstrates that the construct value in the same column is less than the value of all variables on the square AVE in the diagonal column. Code of ethics 0.803, audit tenure 0.974, audit firm rotation 0.920, audit fee 0.722, audit quality 0.923, and audit fee as moderating code of ethics, audit tenure, and audit firm rotation

1.00 are the AVE squared values for each variable. Therefore, it can be said that every construct in this study satisfies the requirements for discriminant validity. Konvergen Validity Test

The WarpPLS software was used to assist in the validity assessment of this investigation. The purpose of the validity test is to determine the validity of a questionnaire. According to convergent validity, each indicator's loading factor value on the construct must be greater than 0.70, the p-value must be less than 0.05, and the AVE value must be greater than 0.50. indicates that all of the variables in this study have satisfied the standards of convergent validity as the AVE value for all constructs is above 0.50 and the value of all indicators of each construct is above 0.60 with a P-Value <0.001.

Source: Data processed by researchers, 2025

Source: Data processed by researchers, 2025

Based on the table above, As may be observed, the audit quality variable's R-squared value is 0.538. This indicates that the code of ethics, audit tenure, audit firm rotation, and audit fee variables can account for 53.8% of the variance in audit quality. The model is deemed excellent since the R-squared audit quality variable findings fall into the moderate range.

Source: Data processed by researchers, 2025

Based on the Q-squared in the table, it is known that the Q-squared value is greater than the zero value, namely audit quality of 0.522. it means that this research model has good predictive validity.

Based on the results of the effect size in the table, it is known that the variables of code of ethics, audit tenure and audit fees on audit quality are included in the weak category with the results of the effect size of each variable of 0.017; 0.011; 0.019. Then for the audit fee variable as a moderating variable, the code of ethics, audit tenure and audit firm rotation on audit quality are included in the weak category with the results of the effect size of each variable of 0.003; 0.022; and 0.012. While the audit firm rotation variable on audit quality of 0.478 is included in the large category.

Source: Data processed by researchers, 2025

Source: Data processed by researchers, 2025

A path coefficient value of 0.057 indicates that the code of ethics variable has a weak but non-positive impact on audit quality. Nonetheless, this figure's P- value of 0.254 (>0.05) indicates that the code of ethics variable has a negligible impact. Though the association is not strong enough to be substantiated in this investigation, this calculation demonstrates that the code of ethics hypothesis (X1) has a positive direction of effect on audit quality. The effect size, which is 0.017, shows the R2 value. This indicates that the code of ethics variable accounts for 1.7% of the audit quality variable, with other factors not included in this study accounting for the other 98.3%. The results of testing this hypothesis are in line with research S. S. Kusuma & Prabowo (2019) and Alfiati (2017) in there research concluded that the code of ethics has a positive influence on audit quality but the relationship is not strong enough to be supported.

With a path coefficient value of 0.070, the audit tenure variable has a positive but marginal impact on audit quality. Nonetheless, the audit tenure variable has a negligible impact, as indicated by the P-Values value of 0.208 (>0.05). The audit tenure hypothesis (X2) has a positive direction of effect on audit quality, as explained by these calculations; nevertheless, the link is not strong enough to be substantiated in this investigation. The variable's R2 value is 0.011, which indicates that the audit tenure variable accounts for 1.1% of the explanation of the audit quality variable, with other factors not included in this study accounting for the remaining 98.9%. Numerous empirical investigations provide an explanation for why audit tenure has no impact on audit quality. Basworo et al., (2021)implies that audit quality is not always influenced by the length of the auditor's contact with the client. For instance, new auditors may

have a more independent and fresh perspective, but they also require time to fully comprehend the business features of the client, which might raise the possibility of audit errors early in their career.

With a path coefficient of 0.676 and P-Values <0.001, audit firm rotation significantly and strongly improves audit quality. This demonstrates that the final audit quality increases with the frequency of the audit firm rotation. Research backs this up because it demonstrates a strong correlation. The value of R2 is 0.478. This indicates that the audit firm rotation variable accounts for 47.8% of the variance in the audit quality variable, with other factors not included in this study accounting for the remaining 52.2%. The findings of this hypothesis's testing are consistent with studies Corbella et al. (2015); U. T. Kusuma (2021); Basworo et al (2021) in there research concluded that the more frequent audit firm rotation will improve audit quality.

With an insignificant link shown by a path coefficient of 0.058 and P- values of 0.249, audit fees have a positive but modest influence. This indicates that even while audit fees result in a little improvement in audit quality, the link is not robust enough to be statistically validated. The effect size, which is 0.019, shows the R2 value. This indicates that the audit fee variable can account for 1.9% of the audit quality variable, with other factors not included in this study accounting for the other 98.1% (Krisnia et al., 2024). In his research, he concluded that audit fees have a positive but insignificant effect on audit quality. One of the main reasons for this finding is that although higher audit fees may reflect a greater allocation of resources to the audit process, other factors such as auditor competence, independence, and client pressure also affect audit quality.

When the audit fee is included as a moderating variable in the code of ethics variable on audit quality, the results of the study still show a very weak and insignificant effect, with a path coefficient of 0.012 and P-Values of 0.447. this shows that the audit fee does not significantly strengthen the relationship between the code of ethics and audit quality. The R2 value can be seen in the effect size of 0.03. This means that the audit quality variable can be explained by the audit fee variable as a moderating variable by 0.3% and the remaining 99.7% can be explained by other variables outside this study. The results of this study are not in line with research Suhariadi & Arif (2022); A. A. C. Dewi & Ramantha (2019); Colette & Lukman (2024) This can be caused by several factors, one of which is differences in research context, analytical methods, or samples used. Each study is conducted in a different environment, both in terms of regulations, company characteristics, and professional standards applied, so the results can vary.

Audit fee are able to strengthen the influence of the code of ethics on audit quality With a path coefficient of 0.097 and P-values of 0.128, audit tenure on audit quality still shows a positive but mild influence when audit fees are taken into account as a moderating variable. This indicates that the study's findings are still negligible even after audit fee is employed as a moderator of the association between audit tenure and audit quality. The impact size of 0.022 displays the R2 value. This indicates that 2.2% of the audit quality variable may be explained by the audit fee variable as a moderating variable for audit tenure, with other variables not included in this study accounting for the other 97.8%. Research conducted by Suhariadi & Arif (2022), A. A. C. Dewi & Ramantha (2019), and Colette & Lukman (2024) produced different findings compared to the results of

this study.

Audit fee are able to strengthen the influence of the code of ethics on audit quality With a path coefficient of 0.036 and P-values of 0.037, audit fee, when included as a moderating variable for the association between audit firm rotation and audit quality, still has a positive but mild influence. This suggests that the association between audit firm rotation and audit quality is not substantially strengthened by audit fees. The impact size in Table 4.12 displays the R2 value, which is 0.012. This indicates that the audit fee variable, which acts as a moderator of audit firm rotation, can account for 1.2% of the audit quality variable, with other factors not included in this study accounting for the other 98.8%. Research conducted by Corbella et al. (2015), Basworo et al. (2021), A. A.

C. Dewi & Ramantha (2019), serta U. T. Kusuma (2021) produced different findings compared to the results of this study.