IIA-CIA-Part2 Questions Bank

Analytical procedures involve evaluating financial and operational information by comparing it with expected values. These expectations can be based on historical data, industry benchmarks, budgets, or other relevant criteria. The primary purpose of analytical procedures is to identify any unusual or unexpected variations that could indicate potential issues or areas requiring further investigation.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2320: Analysis and Evaluation requires internal auditors to analyze and evaluate the information gathered during an engagement. Analytical procedures are a critical part of this process, as they help auditors identify trends, anomalies, and areas of risk by comparing actual results with expectations.

The Practice Guide on Analytical Procedures defines these procedures as the analysis of relationships between different sets of data, with the goal of identifying inconsistencies or unexpected patterns.

A. Vouching vendor invoices to payments made:This verifies payment accuracy but does not confirm whether purchases were authorized.

B. Sorting invoices by purchase orders and comparing for successive duplicate invoices:This approach focuses on detecting duplicate invoices, not authorization.

C. Comparing a random sample of vendor invoices to purchase orders:Correct. This method directly matches invoices to purchase orders, confirming that purchases were authorized and appropriately documented.

D. Sorting payments by invoice to detect successive duplicate invoices:Similar to option B, this approach focuses on detecting duplicates rather than verifying authorization.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Testing for Authorization and Validity.

When identifying specific processes to include in the scope of an assurance engagement, the most useful information for an internal auditor is recent area performance indicators against productivity metrics. This data helps the auditor identify areas with potential risks or inefficiencies that might warrant further examination.

IIA Standard 2200 – Engagement Planning:

This standard requires auditors to develop a plan for each engagement, including objectives and scope, based on a thorough understanding of the area under review. Performance indicators provide valuable insights into areas that may not be meeting productivity or efficiency targets.

Use of Performance Indicators:

Performance indicators allow the auditor to identify processes that may be underperforming or where there may be significant variances from expected outcomes. This helps in focusing the audit on areas with the greatest potential for improvement or risk.

IIA Practice Advisory 2201-2:

The advisory suggests that auditors should consider using performance data, such as productivity metrics, to determine where to focus their audit efforts. This data-driven approach ensures that the audit is relevant and adds value.

Option A (Recognition awards): Awards do not provide insight into risks or underperformance that might require audit attention.

Option B (Timing of the last audit): While useful, the timing alone does not indicate current risks or issues.

Option C (Management's presentation): This may provide some insights, but it is often more narrative and less data-driven than performance indicators.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct because recent performance indicators against productivity metrics provide the most relevant information for identifying processes to include in the scope of an assurance engagement, ensuring that the audit is focused on areas of significant risk or opportunity for improvement, in line with IIA standards.

The chief audit executive should give the most consideration to the organization's risk management policy when communicating an identified unacceptable risk to management. The risk management policy outlines the organization's approach to managing risk, including risk tolerance levels, risk appetite, and the procedures for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks. By aligning the communication with the risk management policy, the CAE ensures that the discussion about unacceptable risk is framed within the context of the organization's established risk management framework, facilitating a more structured and effective response from management.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2010 - Planning and COSO's Enterprise Risk Management Framework.