A Cascaded Inference Model for Evaluation of the Internal Audit Report

This paper provides a normative framework for how external auditors should evaluate internal audit (IA) work, with a view to assessing the risk of material misstatement. The central issue facing the external auditor when evaluating IA work is the reliability of IA work. Reliability assessments are structured using the cascaded inference framework from behavioral decision theory, in which attributes of source reliability are explicitly modeled and combined using Bayes' rule in order to determine the inferential value of IA work. Results suggest that the inferential value of an IA report is highly sensitive to internal auditor reporting bias, but relatively insensitive to reporting veracity. Veracity refers to internal auditors' propensity to report truthfully, whereas bias refers to the propensity to misreport findings. Results also indicate that this sensitivity to reporting bias is conditional on the level of internal auditor competence, thus suggesting significant interaction effects between the objectivity and competence factors. Collectively, these findings suggest that the impact of source reliability attributes may be more complex than portrayed in the auditing standards and that recognizing these subtleties may lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness.

[1]  Arnold Schneider,et al.  Modeling External Auditors' Evaluations of Internal Auditing , 1984 .

[2]  M. W. Nelson,et al.  Using Decision Aids to Improve Auditors' Conditional Probability Judgments , 1998 .

[3]  James R. Frederickson,et al.  Independent auditor litigation: Recent events and related research , 1998 .

[4]  Thomas Kida,et al.  The effect of risk factors on auditors' configural information processing , 1993 .

[5]  E. Bamber,et al.  Expert Judgment in the Audit Team: A Source Reliability Approach , 1983 .

[6]  Robert W. Rouse.  Outsourcing the internal audit function , 1996 .

[7]  William F. Messier,et al.  A hierarchical approach to the external auditor's evaluation of the internal auditing function* , 1988 .

[8]  Paul R. Brown.  INDEPENDENT AUDITOR JUDGMENT IN THE EVALUATION OF INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTIONS , 1983 .

[9]  Mario J. Maletta.  An Examination of Auditors' Decisions to Use Internal Auditors as Assistants: The Effect of Inherent Risk* , 1993 .

[10]  D. Hirst,et al.  Auditors Sensitivity To Source Reliability , 1994 .

[11]  David A. Schum,et al.  Knowledge, probability, and credibility , 1989 .

[12]  Theodore J. Mock,et al.  A Comparative Evaluation of Belief Revision Models in Auditing , 1999 .

[13]  Loren L. Margheim.  Further Evidence On External Auditors Reliance On Internal Auditors , 1986 .

[14]  Edward J. Joyce,et al.  Are Auditors' Judgments Sufficiently Regressive? , 1981 .

[15]  Mario J. Maletta,et al.  The Contribution of Internal Audit as a Determinant of External Audit Fees and Factors Influencing this Contribution , 2001 .

[16]  David A. Schum,et al.  Murder and (of?) the likelihood principle: A Trialogue , 1990 .