Evaluating the Work of Internal Audit: A Comparison of Standards and Empirical Evidence

Abstract

Numerous changes have recently been proposed or made to audit standards providing guidance for external auditors' evaluations of internal audit work. This paper reports the results of a study to compare the UK's Accounting Practices Board Statement of Auditing Standard 500, first, with similar standards promulgated by international, Canadian and US societies, and second, with audit quality factors derived from practising internal auditors. The data for the latter comparison was obtained from a two-phase study that first generated a set of potential quality factors through intensive structured interviews with audit groups from six different and diverse organisations, and then obtained evaluations of these factors from a large sample of internal auditors worldwide. Results first indicate that there are strong similarities between the guidance provided by SAS 500 and that proposed or promulgated by the UK, international, Canadian and US audit groups. Furthermore, the guidance provided by these SASs for items to consider in evaluating the quality of internal audit work are largely in agreement with the factors determined by practising internal auditors. There are, however, several items listed in SAS 500 that are not considered useful by internal auditors and there are other factors considered crucial by internal auditors but not mentioned in the SASs.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.