IIA-CIA-Part2 IIA Practice of Internal Auditing Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

If the chief audit executive (CAE) determines that management has chosen to accept a high-level risk that may be unacceptable to the organization, the CAE should first discuss the matter with senior management. If senior management does not address the concern, the CAE should escalate the issue to the board. This escalation process ensures that the highest levels of governance are aware of significant risks and can take appropriate action if necessary. It also aligns with the CAE's responsibility to ensure that risks are properly managed within the organization.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks

Sending written preliminary observations to the audit client serves an important purpose in the audit process. It allows internal auditors to convey their findings clearly and helps in highlighting the significance of the issues identified during the audit.

IIA Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating:

This standard requires that communication must be accurate, objective, clear, concise, constructive, complete, and timely. Written observations help ensure that these criteria are met, particularly in expressing the significance of the audit findings.

Importance of Written Communication:

Clarity and Precision: Written communication allows the auditor to carefully craft the message, ensuring that the findings are communicated clearly and precisely, reducing the risk of misinterpretation.

Expressing Significance: By putting observations in writing, auditors can emphasize the importance of the findings, ensuring that the client understands the potential impact on the organization.

IIA Practice Advisory 2410-1:

This advisory suggests that written observations allow auditors to provide a detailed explanation of the findings, including the root cause, potential effects, and recommendations. This is particularly important when the auditor needs to convey the seriousness or significance of the issues found.

Option A (Allows more interpretation): Written observations are intended to reduce misinterpretation, not increase it.

Option C (Equally effective): Written observations often have more weight and permanence than verbal ones, especially in formal settings.

Option D (Limits premature agreement): This is not the primary purpose of written observations; rather, it is to clearly express the auditor’s findings and their significance.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it highlights the role of written observations in conveying the significance of audit findings, consistent with IIA guidance on effective communication.

When preparing an internal control questionnaire for the procurement department, referencing relevant procurement laws or regulations ensures that the questions are aligned with the legal and regulatory requirements governing procurement activities. This approach helps to ensure that the questionnaire addresses all necessary compliance issues and identifies potential gaps in the organization's procurement processes that could lead to non-compliance.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations

Below is the reconstructed question statement for QUESTION NO: 264, formatted to match the provided questions (496–501) and the new question 264. The question statement is inferred based on the answer, explanation, and context, which focus on auditing the effectiveness of a quality control process for identifying defective products.

by a grantee that received a charitable contribution, the most effective method is to visit the grantee and directly assess whether the project execution aligns with the scope defined in the grant. This method provides firsthand evidence of the grantee’s activities and ensures that the charitable contributions are used as intended.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement objectives. Visiting the grantee allows auditors to observe and verify the actual execution of the project, which provides the most direct and reliable evidence.

Field Visits:

Conducting a site visit enables auditors to see the project in action, interview relevant personnel, and compare actual activities to what was promised in the grant proposal. This method helps ensure that the grantee is fulfilling its obligations and that the organization’s charitable funds are being used effectively.

Direct Evidence:

Direct observation of the grantee’s activities provides the highest level of assurance regarding the validity of the reported activities. This aligns with IIA’s emphasis on obtaining the best available evidence to support audit findings.

Option B (Verifying final report vs. initial budget): This only compares reports, which might not accurately reflect the actual activities conducted by the grantee.

Option C (Reconciling general ledger accounts): This focuses on financial records, which may not provide sufficient detail about the actual activities conducted.

Option D (Interviewing corporate affairs employees): While informative, this method only provides secondhand information and does not directly verify the grantee’s activities.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because visiting the grantee provides the most reliable and direct evidence that the activities are in line with the grant’s defined scope, ensuring the validity of the grantee’s reported activities.

Coordinating audit plans with other internal and external assurance providers is critical to ensure coverage and avoid duplication of efforts. According to IIA Practice Advisory 2050-1, sharing high-level information such as objectives, scope, and timing supports effective coordination and minimizes the risk of conflicts of interest, while still maintaining confidentiality. Detailed sharing of risk assessments, planned tests, and past results might breach confidentiality and independence standards.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Advisory 2050-1: Coordination of Internal and External Audit Activities

For a consulting engagement, planning typically occurs after the engagement objectives and scope have already been determined. In consulting engagements, the objectives and scope are usually agreed upon with the client at the outset, and planning activities then focus on how to achieve these objectives within the defined scope.

The internal auditor's objective in sorting the data by vehicle and identifying instances of refueling on the same or sequential dates is most likely to determine whether fuel purchases were legitimate and for work-related purposes. By analyzing patterns of refueling, the auditor can identify any anomalies or unusual activity that may suggest misuse or personal use of the organization's vehicles. This helps ensure that organizational resources are being used appropriately and that there are no instances of fraud or abuse.

The statement that the risk management process supports internal audit by evaluating whether critical controls are adequate and effective is true. The risk management process provides a framework for identifying, assessing, and managing risks, and internal audit uses this information to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of controls in place to mitigate those risks. This support helps internal audit focus on areas of high risk and ensure that controls are functioning as intended.

According to IIA guidance, if the internal audit activity does not have sufficient time to complete its usual root cause analysis, the chief audit executive (CAE) may recommend that management conduct further work to identify the root cause and address the issue. This approach ensures that the root cause is still identified and addressed without delaying the audit report, maintaining the integrity and usefulness of the audit findings while leveraging management’s resources.

An operational audit is the most appropriate type of audit engagement to determine how an organization could be more profitable in the long term. Operational audits focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization's operations, processes, and procedures. They assess whether resources are being used optimally to achieve business objectives and identify opportunities for cost savings, process improvements, and enhanced productivity. This type of audit is designed to provide insights and recommendations that can help an organization improve its profitability over the long term by streamlining operations and eliminating inefficiencies.

According to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, the CAE must be kept informed of significant issues and deficiencies that are not addressed by management. Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks requires the CAE to report any situation where management has accepted a level of risk that may be unacceptable to the organization. If the engagement supervisor learns that agreed-upon remedial actions have not been implemented, the CAE needs to be notified to determine further steps, ensuring that risks are managed appropriately and in alignment with the organization's risk tolerance. This response aligns with the internal audit function's responsibility to follow up on management's corrective actions.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks.

The appropriate conclusion that can be drawn from the findings is that the internal controls guiding contract management are not operating effectively. The listed findings, such as noncompliance with contract provisions, lack of monitoring compliance with contract obligations and deliverables, and absence of contract agreements with key vendors, indicate significant control deficiencies in the contract management process. These deficiencies suggest that the controls intended to ensure compliance and effective management of contracts are either inadequate or not functioning as intended.References: IIA's Guide on Internal Controls and Audit Findings.

A RACI (responsible, accountable, consult, and inform) chart is the tool that an internal auditor should use to determine whether all principal stakeholders are involved in a project. A RACI chart clearly defines roles and responsibilities for each task or deliverable in a project, ensuring that all necessary stakeholders are identified and their involvement is appropriately documented.

Ensuring the quality of an audit engagement, especially a consulting engagement in a complex area like human resources, requires effective supervision and quality assurance measures. Peer review during fieldwork is a recognized method for maintaining high-quality audit work.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be properly supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, quality is maintained, and audit work is consistent with IIA standards. Peer reviews during fieldwork can help identify issues early and improve the overall quality of the audit.

Fieldwork Peer Review:

Quality Assurance: Peer reviews involve having another auditor review the work performed during fieldwork. This process helps identify any potential issues or improvements in real-time, ensuring that the final work product meets the required standards.

Continuous Improvement: By incorporating peer reviews, the internal audit activity can ensure that best practices are followed, and any deviations from the standard audit process are corrected promptly.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

This advisory recommends peer reviews as a method to ensure quality and to provide feedback to auditors on their work, enhancing the effectiveness of the engagement.

Option A (Assign an experienced manager): While supervision is essential, peer reviews provide additional quality checks beyond just monitoring by a manager.

Option C (Standardized work program): This ensures consistency but may not be sufficient to ensure quality without additional review mechanisms.

Option D (CAE personally supervising): This is not the most efficient use of the CAE’s time. Peer review distributes the supervisory load and adds value through diverse perspectives.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it aligns with best practices for quality assurance in internal auditing, particularly in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the engagement through peer reviews during fieldwork.

In the risk control map, Risk C is positioned in the upper left quadrant, indicating it is critical (high risk significance) but with a low level of control. This suggests that the current controls are insufficient to mitigate the high level of risk associated with Risk C. For critical risks, a higher level of control is necessary to ensure that the risk is properly managed and mitigated. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Risk Management Framework" (COSO)

According to IIA guidance, interim reports are typically produced during lengthy audit engagements that involve several organizational units. These reports help keep management informed about the progress of the audit, highlight any significant issues identified early on, and allow for timely corrective actions. Interim reports facilitate communication between the internal audit activity and management, ensuring that any critical issues are addressed promptly rather than waiting for the final report.

According to IIA guidance, a draft work program prepared by the engagement supervisor after concluding a preliminary assessment would test the process controls. The work program outlines the specific procedures and steps the internal audit team will take to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls in place to mitigate identified risks.

Outsourcing fraud investigations to a third-party service provider can result in a lack of familiarity with the organization’s specific operations, culture, and history. This can be a disadvantage as external investigators may require more time to understand the context and nuances of the organization, potentially affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the investigation. References: = IIA Standard 1210 - Proficiency and IIA Practice Guide: “Internal Audit and Fraud”.