Auditor Competency: The Relationship of Professional Judgment to the Audit Quality of Internal

Auditors with Auditor Work Experience as Moderating Variable

I. Data Privacy Act
a. In accordance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and its implementing Rules and
Regulation, in answering this form and disclosing your personal or sensitive personal
information, you consent for the researchers to access, collect, and process any personal
information and/or sensitive personal information for the research entitled “Auditor
Competency: The Relationship of Professional Judgment to the Audit Quality of Internal
Auditors with Auditor Work Experience as Moderating Variable” only and gathered
information will be handled with strict confidentiality. By completing this form, I hereby
signify my consent and authorize the researchers to collect and process the data indicated
herein for research purposes only.
o I agree.

II. Personal Information

a. Name (optional)
b. Email Address
c. Are you employed in a publicly-listed company?
o Yes
o No

d. What is your gender?

o Male
o Female
o I prefer not to say.

e. Which age group are you in?

o Below 28 years old
o 28-37 years old
o 38-47 years old
o 48-57 years old
o Above 58 years old

f. What is your highest level educational attainment?

o Bachelor’s Degree
o Professional Degree
o Master’s Degree
o Doctoral Degree
o Other:

g. What professional qualifications do you hold?

o CPA
o CMA
o CIA
o CISA
o Other:
 h. What is your principal role in internal auditing?
o VP for Internal Audit
o Internal Audit Senior Manager
o Internal Audit Manager
o Internal Audit Senior Assistant Manager
o Internal Audit Assistant Manager
o Senior Internal Auditor
o Junior Internal Auditor
o Internal Audit Specialist
o Internal Audit Staff
o Other:

i. How long is your experience in internal auditing? (round off to the nearest year)

III. Audit Quality

a. Section 1: Possible Attributes of Audit, Aspects of Business, Accounting, and Auditing
Environment which could have an impact on Audit Quality
1. The audit is carried out in accordance with auditing standards.
2. The audit is carried out in accordance with ethical standards.
3. The audit is carried out in accordance with quality control standards (ISQC1).
4. The auditor does sufficient work to obtain sufficient evidence to support an
audit opinion.
5. The work done in carrying out the audit is subject to review before the audit is
completed.
6. The auditor reports the correct audit opinion on the financial statements.
7. The audit meets the quality standards applied internally by the audit firm.
8. Accounting standards requiring more estimation and judgments have resulted
in greater need for technical expertise.
9. The framework of audit regulation has led to focus on conducting an audit
beyond the minimum requirements of auditing standards.
10. The framework of audit regulation has resulted in less reliance on the auditor‘s
professional judgment. (remove)

b. Section 2: Manner in which Audit Quality is achieved on Individual Audit Engagements in

Practice
1. The degree of involvement of the audit engagement partner during audit
planning influences the quality of the resulting audit process.
2. Training within the audit firm enhances auditors‘ technical expertise.
3. Training within the audit firm improves auditors‘ ability to challenge the
management of audit clients.
4. Technical and other consultations within the audit firm enhance the quality of
judgments made during the completion of the audit.
5. Internal reviews within the audit firm enhance the quality of audit judgments
made during the audit.
6. Internal reviews within the audit firm enhance auditors technical expertise.
7. Audit firm methodologies and manuals improve the quality of audit judgment
applied during the audit.
 8. Interaction between the auditor and the audit committee is influential in
determining the content of audit work undertaken.
9. Interaction between the auditor and the audit committee facilitate the right audit
opinion being reported.

IV. Professional Judgment

a. Section 1: Gathering Facts
1. I consider the relevant technical literature, professional standards, and industry
information, recognizing that reference to more than one source may be
appropriate to address the audit-related issue.
2. I consider whether I have understood the form and substance of the
transaction.
3. I consider whether the treatment that results from applying the relevant
literature has been applied appropriately to similar transactions, events, or
situations.
4. I examine source documents and other materials as appropriate (including
determining whether such information was independently sourced or prepared
by the company), interview knowledgeable client personnel, and consider other
relevant sources of information, as appropriate.
5. I identify the pertinent information needed to address the audit-related issue by
considering the business rationale or economics of the transaction, event, or
situation.
6. I identify the pertinent information needed to address the audit-related issue by
considering the importance of the said issue to the risk of material
misstatement to the financial statements.
7. I identify the pertinent information needed to address the audit-related issue by
considering the assessed risks of material misstatement associated with the
said issue.
8. I identify the pertinent information needed to address the audit-related issue by
considering the importance of the said issue to the overall audit plan, including
the auditor’s ability to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence.
9. I identify the pertinent information needed to address the audit-related issue by
considering the relevant audit observations.
10. I identify the pertinent information needed to address the audit-related issue by
considering the manner in which the company addresses the assessed risk of
material misstatement.
11. I corroborate the facts or assumptions that are believed to have an important
bearing on the analysis.
12. I sufficiently assess, test, and objectively challenge the appropriateness and
reliability of the assumptions and data to be used in the analysis of the
transaction or situation by obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence.
13. I consider what assumptions, if changed, would have the greatest impact on
the judgment.
14. I consider potentially disconfirming evidence, including information that
contradicts management’s assertions.
15. I identify discrepancies or inconsistencies in the facts and information
gathered.
b. Section 2: Performing Analysis
1. My analysis identifies additional audit-related issues that need to be
addressed.
2. I am confident that I gather and analyze sufficient and appropriate evidence,
not just what is easily available or that which confirms the company’s or my
(initial) conclusion.
3. I consider the underlying standards in the relevant auditing or accounting
guidance.
4. The applicable authoritative guidance identifies or addresses the issue directly.
5. I (the audit engagement team or the audit firm’s national office) have previous
experience with the issue.
6. I appropriately consider alternative perspectives raised by the members of the
audit team or others consulted.
7. I seek input from others with different perspectives. For example, the
complexity or subjectivity of the matter indicates the need to consult with more
experienced engagement team members, specialists within the firm, or
external specialists.
8. I consider the alternatives in terms of how well they would address the issue.

c. Section 3: Making Decisions, Reviewing and Completing the Documentation and

Rationale for the Conclusion.
1. There are specific accounting-related requirements that drive such
inconsistency or other factors the auditor should consider if the decision is not
necessarily consistent with the situation’s planned economics.
2. I rely too much upon easily available information, or rely upon the same
process or approach used in the prior year (without considering reasonable
alternatives). (remove)
3. There are signs of potential bias in the analysis or rationale for the decision
reached. (remove)
4. I describe the rationale for the alternative selected, including the reason why
the selected alternative is preferred to other alternatives.
5. I document how disconfirming evidence was considered where applicable.
6. I assess whether the audit work and the extent of the documentation is
consistent with the significance and complexity of the professional judgment
reached.
7. I document relevant information for each of the steps in the process in sufficient
detail to allow an experienced auditor to understand the issues, facts
considered, and the bases for judgments and related conclusions.