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

When an internal auditor identifies a potential significant weakness in a control and management does not agree with the assessment, the appropriate next step is to perform additional audit work to better articulate the risk. This means gathering more evidence, conducting further analysis, and providing clearer examples of how the weakness could impact the organization. By doing this, the auditor can better communicate the potential consequences and severity of the risk to management, increasing the likelihood of reaching a mutual understanding and agreement on the necessary actions.

When determining the level of staff and resources for an assurance engagement, the most relevant factor for the chief audit executive (CAE) is the availability of resources with the specific skill set required for that particular engagement. This is because assurance engagements often involve complex and specialized areas that necessitate specific expertise to effectively evaluate controls, risks, and processes.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2230: Engagement Resource Allocation states that internal auditors must determine appropriate and sufficient resources to achieve engagement objectives based on an evaluation of the nature and complexity of each engagement, time constraints, and available resources. The emphasis is on ensuring that the team assigned to the engagement possesses the necessary skills and knowledge.

The Practice Advisory 2230-1 further suggests that the CAE should consider the complexity and risks associated with the engagement and ensure that the assigned team has the appropriate experience and technical skills.

The primary purpose of implementing a program whereby employees are rotated from other parts of the organization into the internal audit activity is to provide an opportunity for the recruitment of employees as permanent internal auditors. This rotation program helps in identifying talented individuals who might have the aptitude and interest in internal auditing. It serves as a recruitment strategy by exposing employees from other departments to the internal audit function, potentially increasing the pool of candidates for permanent internal auditor positions. This approach also benefits the internal audit activity by bringing in fresh perspectives and diverse experiences from different areas of the organization.References: IIA's Practice Guide on Human Resources Management, specifically regarding staffing and career development within internal audit functions.

Narrative memoranda are used in internal auditing to describe processes in a clear and detailed manner, especially when the process is simple. This method is effective for documenting straightforward processes where a flowchart or other visual representation might be unnecessary or overly complex.

IIA Standard 2330 – Documenting Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors document relevant information to support engagement conclusions and recommendations. Narrative memoranda are one way to document processes, particularly when the process is simple and can be easily described in text.

Use of Narrative Memoranda:

Narrative memoranda provide a written account of a process, outlining each step in a sequential manner. This method is particularly useful for simple processes where the key points can be easily captured in a narrative form, without the need for complex diagrams.

Efficiency in Documentation:

For simple processes, a narrative memorandum is more efficient than a detailed flowchart. It allows the auditor to explain the process clearly and concisely, ensuring that all necessary information is captured without unnecessary detail.

Option A (Detailed risk assessment): A narrative memorandum is not typically used for risk assessments, which require more detailed analysis and often visual aids.

Option B (Identify key roles): While a narrative can mention roles, this is not its primary purpose.

Option D (Document outputs): Documenting outputs that support other activities typically requires more detailed mapping, such as flowcharts or tables.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct because narrative memoranda are best suited for explaining simple processes in a clear and concise manner, in line with IIA documentation standards.

During the design evaluation phase of an audit, the internal auditor's primary role is to assess whether the controls in place are appropriately designed to mitigate risks. This includes identifying key controls such as those over segregation of duties, which is a fundamental control to prevent fraud and errors by ensuring that no single individual has control over all aspects of a transaction.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2201: Planning Considerations highlights the importance of evaluating the adequacy of controls during the design phase. Identifying controls over segregation of duties is a critical step in this process as it ensures that the design is robust and capable of mitigating risks.

In the context of restructuring and consolidating divisions, providing consulting services that focus on operational efficiency is highly valuable. Internal auditors can leverage their understanding of the organization's processes and controls to advise division managers on streamlining operations. This includes identifying redundant processes, recommending best practices, and suggesting ways to optimize resource use. Such guidance helps the organization achieve a smoother transition and enhances overall efficiency, supporting the strategic objectives of the restructuring effort.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2120 - Risk Management and Standard 2130 - Control

If an internal auditor decides to adjust the audit work program during the fieldwork phase of an assurance engagement, the most appropriate next step is to obtain approval from the engagement supervisor. This ensures that any changes to the scope or procedures are reviewed and sanctioned by the audit management, maintaining the integrity and alignment of the audit objectives.

According to IIA guidance, monitoring customer quality complaints compared to the prior period to identify vendor issues is least likely to be a key financial control in an organization's accounts payable process. Key financial controls in accounts payable typically focus on preventing and detecting fraud and errors in the payment process, such as requiring approval for vendor changes, monitoring payment amounts, and comparing employee and vendor addresses to prevent fraud. Monitoring customer quality complaints is more relevant to quality control and vendor management rather than financial control.

A draft internal audit report citing deficient conditions should be reviewed with relevant stakeholders to ensure accuracy, address concerns, and plan corrective actions. This includes the client manager and her superior (Option 1) to inform them of the findings and obtain their perspective. It should also be reviewed with anyone who may object to the report’s validity (Option 2) to address potential disagreements or misunderstandings early in the process. Finally, it should include anyone required to take action (Option 3) so they are aware of their responsibilities and can begin planning remediation efforts. While it may be beneficial to review with those who receive the final report (Option 4), it is not essential for the draft stage. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2440 - Disseminating Results.

The internal auditor has primarily obtained testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence is derived from interviews, discussions, and responses from employees or other parties. It involves collecting and analyzing verbal information to draw conclusions, which is precisely what the auditor did by conducting interviews, documenting them, analyzing the summaries, and drawing conclusions based on this information.

To increase the deterrent effect of a code of business conduct, it should include appropriate descriptions of penalties for misconduct and notifications that violations may lead to criminal prosecution. These elements clearly communicate the serious consequences of unethical behavior, thus reinforcing the importance of adhering to the code. References: = IIA Practice Guide on "Evaluating Ethics-related Programs and Activities".

For compliance engagements, particularly those related to critical processes such as cash disbursements, it is important to distribute the final audit report to individuals with oversight and decision-making responsibilities. The accounts payable manager oversees the process, the chief financial officer (CFO) has overall financial oversight, and the audit committee provides governance and oversight of the audit function. This ensures that the report is reviewed by those with the authority to implement changes and address any issues identified. References:

IIA Standards - 2440: Disseminating Results

IIA Practice Advisory - 2440-1: Disseminating Results

When an internal auditor identifies a major control weakness during a preliminary survey, the appropriate response is to bring it to the attention of the process owner for resolution. This approach aligns with the standards and guidelines provided by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), particularly under the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards).

IIA Standard 2120 – Risk Management:

According to Standard 2120, the internal auditor must evaluate the effectiveness of the organization's risk management processes. Identifying and reporting control weaknesses is a key aspect of this evaluation. By bringing the issue to the attention of the process owner, the internal auditor ensures that those responsible for managing the process are aware of the risk and can take appropriate corrective actions.

IIA Standard 2060 – Reporting to Senior Management and the Board:

While it might seem logical to report directly to senior management (as option A suggests), the IIA recommends that the process owner be given the opportunity to address the issue first. Standard 2060 emphasizes that significant risk exposures and control issues should be reported to senior management and the board, but only after they have been discussed with the appropriate process owners.

IIA Standard 2440 – Disseminating Results:

According to Standard 2440, the communication of audit results should be consistent with the objectives of the audit engagement. It is good practice to inform the process owner promptly so they can address the issue before the audit report is finalized. This approach helps in mitigating the risk at an early stage and ensures that the control weaknesses are appropriately managed.

Ethical Considerations:

The IIA’s Code of Ethics requires internal auditors to act with integrity and to ensure that their communications are honest and constructive. Notifying the process owner immediately reflects a proactive and ethical approach to audit findings. It allows for timely corrective actions and demonstrates the auditor's commitment to improving the organization's control environment.

Option A (Issue a final report to senior management): This step is premature at this stage of the audit. Issuing a final report without allowing the process owner to address the issue could lead to unnecessary escalation and may undermine the collaborative nature of the audit process.

Option C (Note the control weakness for discussion during the exit meeting): While discussing the issue during the exit meeting is part of the process, it is more effective to address the control weakness immediately rather than waiting until the exit meeting, where valuable time might be lost.

Option D (Carry out an investigation for disciplinary action): This is beyond the internal auditor's scope unless the situation specifically warrants an investigation. The focus of the auditor should be on control improvements rather than disciplinary measures, which are typically managed by HR or legal departments.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

Analytical review procedures involve the analysis of financial and operational data to identify trends, anomalies, or patterns that may indicate areas of concern or opportunities for improvement. In this scenario, where an organization is facing rising healthcare insurance costs, the most appropriate analytical review procedure is to compare the rate of increase in healthcare costs with an external benchmark, such as the government index of healthcare costs.

IIA Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation:

The standard emphasizes the need for internal auditors to apply appropriate analytical procedures to understand the nature of data and assess the reasonableness of the information under review. Comparing the organization's cost increases to a government index provides an objective benchmark.

Benchmarking:

By comparing the organization’s rate of increase in healthcare costs with the government index, the internal auditor can determine whether the organization’s costs are in line with industry trends. This comparison helps assess whether the 10 percent annual increase is reasonable or if it deviates significantly from the norm.

Relevance of External Data:

The government index reflects the broader economic environment and industry standards, making it a relevant comparison point. If the organization’s increase significantly exceeds the index, it may indicate inefficiencies or issues that require further investigation.

Option A (Comparison with similar organizations): While useful, this approach may not provide the same level of objectivity as a government index, as organizations may have different healthcare plans, demographics, and other factors affecting costs.

Option C (Obtaining a bid): This relates more to evaluating the cost-effectiveness of services, not the reasonableness of past cost increases.

Option D (Reviewing claims for overpayments): This is a detailed transactional audit, which is important but does not provide a broad analytical view of cost trends.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it directly compares the organization’s cost increase to an objective external benchmark, which aligns with IIA’s emphasis on analytical review procedures for evaluating the reasonableness of financial data.

The observation provided in the final engagement communication includes the criteria (competitive bidding requirements), condition (three of the 10 contracts reviewed did not meet these requirements), and cause (senior management deemed these purchases critical and awarded them as sole-source). However, it lacks the effect, which would explain the potential consequences or impact of not meeting the competitive bidding requirements, such as increased costs, lack of transparency, or potential for favoritism. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Communicating Results.

The statement that "Senior management is charged with overseeing the establishment risk management and control processes" is false. Senior management is typically responsible for establishing risk management and control processes, not just overseeing them. The board or its committees usually have the oversight role.

To ensure that recommendations for enhancing internal controls have been effectively implemented, the internal auditor should conduct appropriate testing to verify management responses. This involves re-performing procedures, reviewing documentation, and possibly observing operations to confirm that the corrective actions have been adequately executed and are effective. Simply seeking a management assurance declaration (Option B) or observing corrective measures (Option A) may not provide sufficient evidence of proper implementation. Following up during the next scheduled audit (Option C) may delay the verification process, potentially allowing risks to persist.References:

IIA Standard 2500: Monitoring Progress.

IIA Practice Guide on Follow-up Processes in Internal Auditing.

According to IIA guidance, the release of prior internal audit reports to external parties must be carefully managed to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the information. The CAE must obtain approval from the board and senior management before releasing such reports. This ensures that sensitive information is disclosed appropriately and in alignment with the organization's governance and compliance policies. References: = IIA Standard 2060 - Reporting to Senior Management and the Board.

In internal auditing, the reliability of evidence is critical. According to IIA standards, evidence that is obtained directly from an external source, such as a customer, is generally considered more reliable, especially when it is timely.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement’s objectives. Evidence obtained directly from external sources is often deemed more reliable because it is less likely to be biased or manipulated.

Direct Evidence:

Evidence obtained directly from a customer is considered highly reliable because it comes from an independent and external party. It is less likely to be influenced by internal pressures or conflicts of interest.

Timeliness:

The timeliness of evidence also affects its reliability. Recent and relevant information is more likely to accurately reflect the current state of affairs, making it more reliable for decision-making.

Option A (Untested third party): Although external, the reliability of evidence from an untested third party is uncertain until their credibility is established.

Option B (Uncorroborated evidence from an employee): This is less reliable as it may be subject to bias or self-interest.

Option C (Undocumented evidence from a manager): Undocumented evidence is generally less reliable as it lacks supporting documentation that can be verified.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?