Free Practice Questions for IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam

Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling, also known as monetary unit sampling, is most appropriate for measuring the total misstatement in an accounts payable ledger. This method is used to determine the likelihood of individual items being selected based on their size, with larger items having a higher probability of being selected. This is particularly useful in identifying overstatements and misstatements in financial records, such as accounts payable, where the monetary value of transactions is a critical factor.

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Auditing Sampling.

Stratified sampling is a technique that involves dividing a population into subgroups (strata) that share similar characteristics and then taking a sample from each subgroup. In the context of testing purchase transactions by different procurement officers, the transactions can be stratified based on the officers, ensuring that the audit team selects a sample that represents each officer's transactions. This method helps in achieving a more accurate and reliable assessment of the procurement process across all officers.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide on Sampling

"Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach" by Alvin A. Arens, Randal J. Elder, Mark S. Beasley

When management decides not to implement a critical recommendation, especially one related to regulatory compliance and potential reputational risk, it is essential for the chief audit executive (CAE) to escalate the issue to senior management. This step ensures that management fully understands the risks involved and can make an informed decision.

IIA Standard 2600 – Communicating the Acceptance of Risks:

This standard requires the CAE to communicate to senior management and the board when management has accepted a level of risk that the CAE believes is unacceptable. The CAE must ensure that the decision-makers are aware of the potential consequences.

Importance of Escalation:

By convening a meeting with senior management, the CAE can discuss the risks of non-compliance, including potential regulatory sanctions and reputational damage. This discussion provides an opportunity for senior management to reassess the decision in light of these risks.

IIA Practice Advisory 2600-1:

The advisory suggests that when significant risks are not being addressed by management, the CAE should communicate these concerns to higher levels of the organization. This ensures that the risks are not ignored and that appropriate action can be taken.

Option A (Do nothing): This is not appropriate, as the CAE has a responsibility to escalate significant risks.

Option B (Contact regulatory agency): This is an extreme step and should not be the first course of action. The issue should be discussed internally before involving external regulators.

Option D (Highlight to external auditors): While external auditors might need to be informed, the issue should first be addressed within the organization.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Data privacy principles — particularly under GDPR and similar frameworks — emphasize data minimization, purpose limitation, and lawful processing. Once a customer closes an account and the statutory retention period ends, the organization should destroy personal information (A) to prevent misuse. Sharing data with affiliates (B) without explicit consent violates purpose limitation. Retaining data for convenience (C) is not legally justified. Using personal information for external research (D) is only valid if explicit consent was granted, but this is not described. Thus, the correct approach is Option A — delete data when it is no longer needed or legally required, ensuring compliance with privacy laws.

The role of the CAE includes ensuring that all significant risks, including those related to health and safety, are properly managed. Even though the chief health and safety officer reports directly to the CEO, the CAE should still coordinate with and review the work of this officer to understand and evaluate the management of health and safety risks. This helps ensure a comprehensive risk management approach within the organization and supports the overall assurance framework. It is not appropriate for the CAE to have no role (Option A), report directly to the regulator (Option C), or hire an external specialist annually without internal coordination (Option D).

IIA Standard 2010: Planning.

IIA Practice Guide on Coordinating Risk Management and Assurance.

According to the IIA guidance, when reviewing an organizational process, the engagement work test typically focuses on process controls. This involves evaluating the design and effectiveness of controls in place to mitigate identified risks and ensure the achievement of process objectives. Assessing process controls helps auditors determine if the controls are operating as intended and are sufficient to manage the associated risks.

The initial step the CAE should take is to discuss the issue with the members of management responsible for the risk area. This discussion allows the CAE to understand the reasons for the lack of action, provide an opportunity for management to explain their position, and encourage them to implement the necessary mitigation measures. If this discussion does not lead to satisfactory action, the CAE would then escalate the issue to senior management or the board as appropriate.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards)

"Internal Auditing: Assurance and Advisory Services" by Urton L. Anderson et al.

Successful change management requires prompt decision-making and actions, as well as ensuring that changes lead to improvement or reform. Respecting the traditions of the organization and controlling internal and external communications are important, but not as critical to the success of change management as the necessity for timely actions and positive outcomes. References:

IIA Practice Guide - Change Management: Facilitating Organizational Change

IIA Standards - 2210: Engagement Objectives

Management testimony of improper segregation of duties in the cash receipt process can be considered relevant. Relevant evidence directly relates to the matter being examined, which in this case is the proper segregation of duties in the cash receipt process. Testimony from management can provide insights and context that are pertinent to understanding and assessing this specific control issue.

IIA Standards: 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Practice Guide: Evaluating Relevance and Reliability of Evidence

 Corporate Policy Statement: Having the president and the board issue a statement stressing the importance of accurate management reporting and the negative consequences of intentional misreporting can help set a tone at the top. This reinforces the significance of ethical behavior and compliance with reporting policies across the organization.

Strong tone at the top is critical for fostering an ethical culture and compliance within an organization (IIA Standard 2110 – Governance).

 Business Process Indicators: Assisting the controller in developing and monitoring business process indicators that are historically correlated with, but independent of, sales can provide an objective means to validate sales reports. This reduces the opportunity for management to exaggerate sales figures as these indicators can act as a control mechanism.

The risk assessment process in planning begins with identifying inherent risks (risks without considering controls). The next logical step is to identify and map existing controls to those inherent risks to determine whether they mitigate them effectively. Only after this step can residual risk be assessed. Detecting actual fraud (Option B) is not part of planning. Risk appetite (C) is a management responsibility, not audit’s. Option D occurs later after evaluating controls.

When deciding whether to report a finding, the sufficiency of the information is critical. Sufficiency refers to the quantity of information obtained to support audit conclusions and recommendations. In this case, the internal auditors need to ensure that the sample size and the evidence collected are adequate to demonstrate that the issue of employees signing purchase orders in a designated acting capacity due to employee absence is significant enough to report. Ensuring sufficiency helps validate that the finding is well-supported and justifies its inclusion in the audit report.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

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. References:

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

Independence Requirement: The IIA's mandatory guidance emphasizes the importance of the CAE's independence to ensure unbiased internal audit activities.

Conflict of Interest: Seeking senior management’s recommendation for the CAE’s salary adjustment can create a conflict of interest and potentially compromise the CAE’s independence.

Best Practices: To maintain independence, the CAE’s compensation should be determined by the board without influence from senior management.

Standard Compliance: According to the IIA's Attribute Standard 1110 – Organizational Independence, the CAE must report to a level within the organization that allows the internal audit activity to fulfill its responsibilities.

Definition of Risk Appetite: Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk an organization is willing to pursue or retain to achieve its objectives. It reflects the organization’s overall approach to risk-taking and is typically articulated at the highest level of the organization.