IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 10

When selecting an external service provider, the CAE must ensure that the provider possesses the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies relevant to the specific type of work being reviewed. This is best demonstrated by the provider's experience in the relevant field (Option D). The other options, such as financial interest (Option A), prior relationships (Option B), and compensation (Option C), are considerations for assessing potential conflicts of interest or independence but are not primary criteria for evaluating technical competency.

Reference:

IIA Standard 1210: Proficiency.

IIA Practice Guide on External Service Provider Arrangements.

Intervening during an audit involving ethical wrongdoing (Option 1) and negotiating a settlement of an employee claim for personal damages (Option 4) represent significant ethical risks if exhibited by an organization's board. These actions could indicate attempts to influence or undermine the audit process and the fair handling of ethical issues, leading to potential conflicts of interest and compromising the integrity of the organization's governance processes. Discussing periodic reports of ethical breaches (Option 2) and authorizing an investigation of an unsafe product (Option 3) are appropriate and responsible board actions that do not pose ethical risks.

Reference:

IIA Standard 1110: Organizational Independence.

IIA Code of Ethics.

The balanced scorecard, introduced by Robert Kaplan and David Norton, includes four main components that provide a comprehensive view of an organization's performance. These components are:

Financial Measures -- to track financial success and shareholder value.

Learning and Growth -- to foster an environment of continuous improvement and innovation.

Customers -- to measure customer satisfaction and market share goals.

Internal Processes -- to ensure that critical operations and business processes are running efficiently. These elements together help an organization balance short-term objectives with long-term goals.

Reference:

Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action.

Control Self-Assessment (CSA) is a process through which employees at various levels of an organization can participate in assessing the effectiveness of risk management and control processes. The direct benefits of CSA include allowing process owners to identify, evaluate, and recommend improvements for control deficiencies (Option B), improving the control environment (Option C), and increasing control consciousness (Option D). However, allowing management to have input into the audit plan (Option A) is not a direct benefit of CSA. This involvement is more related to audit planning and risk assessment rather than the CSA process itself.

Reference:

The IIA's Practice Guide on Control Self-Assessment.

When internal controls are weak, it is important for the auditor to rely less on the internal controls and instead perform more substantive testing. Detail testing involves examining a larger number of individual transactions or balances to gather sufficient evidence about the accuracy and completeness of financial records. This method is appropriate because it does not rely on the effectiveness of internal controls, which are known to be weak in this scenario.

Reference:

The IIA's Standards and Practice Advisories, specifically focusing on audit procedures and responses to weak internal controls.

A draft internal audit report citing deficient conditions should be reviewed with relevant stakeholders to ensure accuracy, address concerns, and plan corrective actions. This includes the client manager and her superior (Option 1) to inform them of the findings and obtain their perspective. It should also be reviewed with anyone who may object to the report's validity (Option 2) to address potential disagreements or misunderstandings early in the process. Finally, it should include anyone required to take action (Option 3) so they are aware of their responsibilities and can begin planning remediation efforts. While it may be beneficial to review with those who receive the final report (Option 4), it is not essential for the draft stage.

Reference:

The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2440 - Disseminating Results.

When interviewing a fraud suspect, it is important to gather both subjective and objective information (Option 1). Subjective information can include opinions or perspectives, which may provide insights into motivations or behaviors, while objective information consists of factual data. The interviewer typically begins with open-ended questions (Option 3) to allow the suspect to provide information freely and without leading them to specific answers. The primary objective is to gather information rather than to obtain a written confession (Option 2), and video recordings, while beneficial in certain cases, are not always used and thus not a standard requirement (Option 4).

Reference:

The IIA's Practice Guide on Conducting Internal Audits in Conformance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards).

The IIA's Practice Guide on Fraud Auditing and Investigation.

According to IIA guidance, the focus of a review of controls to prevent fraud should be on the effectiveness rather than the efficiency of the controls. Effectiveness pertains to whether the controls adequately mitigate fraud risks and prevent fraudulent activities, while efficiency focuses on the performance and cost-effectiveness of the controls, which is not the primary concern in preventing fraud. This makes statement A false in the context of IIA guidance.

IIA Standards: 1220.A1 - Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide: Fraud Prevention and Detection in an Automated World