Free IIA-CIA-Part2 IIA Updates

Ensuring the quality of an audit engagement, especially a consulting engagement in a complex area like human resources, requires effective supervision and quality assurance measures. Peer review during fieldwork is a recognized method for maintaining high-quality audit work.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be properly supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, quality is maintained, and audit work is consistent with IIA standards. Peer reviews during fieldwork can help identify issues early and improve the overall quality of the audit.

Fieldwork Peer Review:

Quality Assurance: Peer reviews involve having another auditor review the work performed during fieldwork. This process helps identify any potential issues or improvements in real-time, ensuring that the final work product meets the required standards.

Continuous Improvement: By incorporating peer reviews, the internal audit activity can ensure that best practices are followed, and any deviations from the standard audit process are corrected promptly.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

This advisory recommends peer reviews as a method to ensure quality and to provide feedback to auditors on their work, enhancing the effectiveness of the engagement.

Option A (Assign an experienced manager): While supervision is essential, peer reviews provide additional quality checks beyond just monitoring by a manager.

Option C (Standardized work program): This ensures consistency but may not be sufficient to ensure quality without additional review mechanisms.

Option D (CAE personally supervising): This is not the most efficient use of the CAE’s time. Peer review distributes the supervisory load and adds value through diverse perspectives.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it aligns with best practices for quality assurance in internal auditing, particularly in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the engagement through peer reviews during fieldwork.

The focus of the effect section of the preliminary observations document should be on residual risk. Residual risk is the remaining risk after management has taken action to mitigate the inherent risk with controls and other risk responses. Documenting the effect in terms of residual risk helps in understanding the potential impact of the observed issues on the organization if not addressed.

IIA Standards: 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Practice Guide: Communicating the Results of an Audit

Nonsampling risk refers to the risk that the auditor reaches an incorrect conclusion due to errors not related to the sample itself but to other factors such as misinterpretation of data, incorrect application of procedures, or human error.

IIA Practice Advisory 2320-3:

This advisory explains that nonsampling risk occurs when an auditor misinterprets results or applies the wrong audit procedure. It differs from sampling risk, which is the risk that a sample is not representative of the population.

Misinterpretation of Sampling Results:

In this case, the senior IT auditor misinterprets the sampling results during the audit of inventory valuation. This is a classic example of nonsampling risk, where the error is due to the auditor’s misunderstanding or misapplication of the data, rather than an issue with the sampling process itself.

IIA Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation:

This standard requires that auditors apply sufficient care and skill in analyzing and interpreting audit evidence. Nonsampling risk can occur if this standard is not met, resulting in incorrect conclusions.

Option A (Sampling risk): This refers to the risk that the sample does not accurately represent the population, which is not the issue here.

Option B (Control risk): This refers to the risk that a control will fail to prevent or detect errors or fraud, unrelated to this situation.

Option D (Residual risk): This refers to the risk that remains after controls are implemented, also unrelated to this scenario.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct as it accurately describes the situation where the auditor misinterprets the sampling results, which is a form of nonsampling risk, according to IIA guidance.

by a grantee that received a charitable contribution, the most effective method is to visit the grantee and directly assess whether the project execution aligns with the scope defined in the grant. This method provides firsthand evidence of the grantee’s activities and ensures that the charitable contributions are used as intended.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement objectives. Visiting the grantee allows auditors to observe and verify the actual execution of the project, which provides the most direct and reliable evidence.

Field Visits:

Conducting a site visit enables auditors to see the project in action, interview relevant personnel, and compare actual activities to what was promised in the grant proposal. This method helps ensure that the grantee is fulfilling its obligations and that the organization’s charitable funds are being used effectively.

Direct Evidence:

Direct observation of the grantee’s activities provides the highest level of assurance regarding the validity of the reported activities. This aligns with IIA’s emphasis on obtaining the best available evidence to support audit findings.

Option B (Verifying final report vs. initial budget): This only compares reports, which might not accurately reflect the actual activities conducted by the grantee.

Option C (Reconciling general ledger accounts): This focuses on financial records, which may not provide sufficient detail about the actual activities conducted.

Option D (Interviewing corporate affairs employees): While informative, this method only provides secondhand information and does not directly verify the grantee’s activities.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because visiting the grantee provides the most reliable and direct evidence that the activities are in line with the grant’s defined scope, ensuring the validity of the grantee’s reported activities.