Free Practice Questions for IIA IIA-CHAL-QISA Exam

The chief audit executive should review the latest guidance from the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) to ensure the internal audit charter complies with current standards. This approach ensures the charter reflects up-to-date practices and mandatory elements, maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the internal audit function.

References:

"International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing," which provides mandatory guidance on the internal audit charter.

When communicating the results of the quality assurance and improvement program (QAIP) to the board of a large organization, the chief audit executive (CAE) should explain the rating conclusions and the impact of the results from the external assessment. This ensures transparency and helps the board understand the effectiveness and areas for improvement in the internal audit function.

Rating Conclusions: These provide a summary of the overall quality and performance of the internal audit function.

Impact Explanation: Discussing the impact helps the board understand how the results affect the internal audit's ability to fulfill its responsibilities and improve its processes.

Transparency: Clear communication of these aspects helps build trust and provides a basis for informed decision-making by the board.

References:

"Internal Audit Quality Assurance and Improvement Program," which emphasizes the importance of explaining rating conclusions and impacts to the board .

Professional Care:Ensuring that internal auditors demonstrate due professional care involves establishing clear policies and procedures that guide their activities.

Guidance and Standards:These policies and procedures help ensure that the internal audit activity adheres to professional standards and best practices.

Standard Compliance:According to the IIA’s Performance Standard 2040 – Policies and Procedures, the CAE must establish policies and procedures to guide the internal audit activity.

Quality Assurance:Properly developed policies and procedures contribute to the overall quality and effectiveness of the internal audit activity, ensuring that engagements are conducted with due professional care.

References:

IIA Standard 2040 – Policies and Procedures ​​.

Audit workpapers are essential documents that provide evidence of the audit work performed and the conclusions reached.

Option A: While review notes can be useful, they do not need to be retained if they do not add value to the audit evidence.

Option B: Audit workpaper documentation policies are typically established by the internal audit department, not reviewed or approved by the audit committee.

Option C: Management should not review the workpapers for accuracy as this could compromise the independence of the audit.

Option D: Preparing workpapers helps auditors document their work thoroughly, facilitating learning and professional development​​.

Professional skepticism is an essential attitude for internal auditors, particularly when assessing the risk of fraud. According to the IIA's Practice Guide "Internal Auditing and Fraud", one of the red flags that may heighten an internal auditor’s professional skepticism is the presence of employees whose qualifications or credentials do not match the requirements of their positions. In this case, a procurement manager lacking the expected academic credentials raises concerns because it could indicate potential fraudulent activities such as unqualified decision-making or manipulation of procurement processes.

Understanding Quality Assessments:Quality assessments in internal audit activities are designed to evaluate various aspects such as the structure of the internal audit activity, relationships with stakeholders, compliance with the IIA Standards, and the proficiency of internal audit staff.

Internal Assessments:These include ongoing monitoring of the performance of the internal audit activity and periodic self-assessments or assessments by other persons within the organization with sufficient knowledge of internal audit practices.

External Assessments:External assessments should be conducted at least once every five years by a qualified, independent assessor or assessment team from outside the organization to ensure objectivity and comprehensiveness.

Focus Areas:Quality assessments should focus on compliance with the IIA Standards, the effectiveness of the internal audit activity's structure, the quality of relationships with stakeholders, and the proficiency and continuous professional development of internal audit staff.

Continuous Improvement:The quality assurance and improvement program (QAIP) should be designed to enable the internal audit activity to add value and improve an organization's operations. It helps ensure that the internal audit activity is in compliance with the IIA Standards and Code of Ethics and continuously improves.

References:

IIA Standard 1300 – Quality Assurance and Improvement Program .

According to the IIA Standards, an internal audit activity must have an external assessment conducted at least once every five years by a qualified, independent reviewer or review team from outside the organization. The validation by an external team ensures that the internal audit activity's self-assessments and quality assurance practices meet the required standards.

Specialized Knowledge: Interrogating a suspected fraudster requires specialized knowledge and skills that go beyond the typical expertise of internal auditors. This includes understanding interrogation techniques, legal implications, and psychological aspects.

Fraud Specialist: A fraud specialist is trained in conducting investigations, including interrogations, and can provide valuable insights and evidence in cases of suspected fraud.

IIA Standards: According to Standard 1210.A2, internal auditors must have sufficient knowledge to evaluate the risk of fraud and the manner in which it is managed by the organization but are not expected to have the expertise of a person whose primary responsibility is detecting and investigating fraud.

Collaborative Approach:

Fraud Investigations: Engaging a fraud specialist ensures that the investigation is conducted thoroughly and professionally, adhering to legal and ethical standards.

Support to Internal Audit: The fraud specialist can provide support and guidance to the internal audit activity, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the fraud investigation.

References:

Employing a fraud specialist to interrogate a suspected fraudster ensures that the investigation is handled with the necessary expertise and legal compliance, thereby increasing the chances of uncovering the truth and taking appropriate actions​​​​.

Introduction:

The monitoring process for internal audit recommendations is a crucial element to ensure that corrective actions are implemented effectively.

Responsibilities in Monitoring:

Internal auditors are responsible for determining how frequently and in what manner the monitoring of audit recommendations should take place. This includes setting a schedule and deciding on the methods to be used for tracking progress.

Options Analysis:

Option A: Reporting the monitoring status when requested is reactive and does not encompass the full scope of monitoring responsibilities.

Option B: Assisting management with implementing corrective actions may compromise auditor independence and objectivity.

Option C: Determining the frequency and approach to monitoring allows auditors to proactively manage and oversee the implementation of recommendations, ensuring they are addressed in a timely and effective manner.

Option D: Including all types of observations in the monitoring process might not be practical or necessary; focus should be on significant findings.

Conclusion:

The most appropriate action for internal auditors during the monitoring process is to determine the frequency and approach to monitoring, ensuring a systematic and consistent follow-up on audit recommendations.

Introduction:

When verifying the validity of activities reported by a grantee, it is essential to gather evidence that the project was executed as intended and within the defined scope.

Effective Verification Methods:

A site visit allows the auditor to observe firsthand the activities and projects funded by the grant, ensuring they align with the grant's objectives and scope.

Options Analysis:

Option A: Visiting the grantee provides direct evidence of the project execution and alignment with the grant scope.

Option B: Verifying the final report against the initial budget request ensures financial compliance but does not confirm actual project activities.

Option C: Reconciling general ledger accounts verifies financial records but not the execution of activities.

Option D: Interviewing corporate affairs employees provides insight but not direct evidence of project execution.

Conclusion:

The best method to confirm the validity of the activities reported by a grantee is to visit the grantee and assess whether the project execution aligns with the defined grant scope.