Internal auditing competence profile: an empirical analysis
Arena, M. (*), Azzone, G., Ciceri, M.
Politecnico di Milano
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale
Corresponding author
Marika Arena
Politecnico di Milano
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale
Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32
20133 Milano
0039 02 23994070
Early Draft
Please do not quote without authors’ permission
Introduction
The problem of defining a competence profile of internal auditors has become particularly relevant in recent
years due to the evolution of the role of Internal Auditing (IA) within the organization and the broadening of
the range of IA stakeholders.
Originally, IA was introduced as a monitoring mechanism aimed at protecting company assets and ensuring
reliable accounting information. In the following years, however, internal auditors tried to extend their areas
of involvement beyond financial auditing and compliance, to include operational auditing, risk management
and consulting activities (Bou-Raad, 2000; Spira & Page, 2003; IIA UK and Ireland, 2008; 2009, Arena &
Azzone, 2009). More recently, financial scandals and the related reforms attracted new attention on IA as
one of the fundamental components of corporate governance, in conjunction with external auditors, top
management and the audit committee (Ebaid, 2011). IA has been increasingly looked at as a possible
response to external pressure of reducing information asymmetry between top management and external
stakeholders (Spira & Page, 2003).
These changes had a double impact on internal auditors’ work. On the one hand, the range of activities
performed by the internal auditors was broadened, with an increasing involvement of internal auditors in
issues such as sustainability, technology, projects. On the other hand, the nature of the activities performed
changed with the introduction of consulting activities in addition to assurance services. These changes
naturally called for an enlargement of internal auditors’ competences, to ensure their ability to deal with
issues that goes beyond the traditional areas of financial auditing and compliance (Abdolmohammadi et al.,
2006; Burnaby & Hass, 2009).
The original focus on internal controls over financial reporting has in fact resulted in competences not
completely coherent with the new needs of the organizations, with potential impacts on the effectiveness of
IA activities concerning the risk assessment process, IA plan development, IA quality and audit coverage
(Ernst & Young, 2008). From a technical perspective, the development of the ability to evaluate and test
internal controls, audit and assess complex IT environments and address both enterprise-wide risk and
governance issues has become essential for internal auditors in addition to traditional financial competences.
From a managerial perspective, internal auditors should be able to “think beyond the project” and have the
business knowledge and confidence to engage in substantive conversations with senior management, middle
management and the audit committee (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007).
An appropriate skills set not only allows internal auditors a better understanding of what adds greater value
to the company, but also increases their credibility, trust and respect towards them, which contributes to the
effectiveness of the IA function (Ramamoorti, 2003; Turner, 2007). Therefore, internal auditors are expected
not only to acquire new skills and tools, but also to adopt new attitudes and practices required to effectively
play the new role (Senapalh, 2000).
This enlargement of IA competences, however, is in contrast with some concrete difficulties that the internal
auditors have to face. On the one hand, the CAEs themselves consider the lack of competences and
capabilities to be one of their primary challenges (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007), though they give great
importance to education, training and competence development (Bou-Raad, 2000; Venter & du Bruyn, 2002;
Rittenberg & Anderson, 2006; Steyn & Plant, 2009).
On the other hand, some empirical research showed that IA stakeholders often consider internal auditors
insufficiently knowledgeable to provide useful help (Griffiths, 1999; Van Peursem, 2004; 2005). In
particular, managers lament internal auditors’ lack of technical skills, their inability to clearly communicate
findings, and the perception of a limited benefit resulting from the implementation of the recommendations
received (Hunton & Wright, 1995; Flesher & Zanzig, 2000). Others believe that internal auditors have the
capabilities to assess risk management processes and report their opinions, but are not able to identify and
report in a reasonable time the problems that threaten the efficiency of these systems (Leech, 2009; Bota-
Avram, 2009).
In this context, the paper aims to: (1) analyze the evolution of internal auditors’ competences in response to
the change role of the IA role, (2) identify key drivers influencing the development of a specific competence
profile at the organizational level.
To answer to these objectives, we relied on the model proposed by Cheetham & Chivers (1998) and we
applied it to the IA. The application of the model is based on data collected through a case study method,
with interviews performed with the CAEs of 14 Italian companies operating in 4 main industries (energy,
manufacturing, financial services and IT)
The paper contributes to the current literature in different ways. This work is one of the few paper that deals
with the problem of IA competence from an academic perspective. The current literature mainly focused on
external auditing (e.g.: Abdolmohammadi & Shanteau, 1992; Abdolmohammadi et al., 2004; Bonner &
Lewis, 1990; Bonner & Pennington, 1991; Libby & Luft, 1993; Libby & Tan, 1994; Tan & Libby, 1997;
Tan, 1999); but very few academic studies have addressed the case of IA (Abdolmohammadi, 2009).
However, the research findings from the external auditing field cannot be automatically transposed to the IA
sphere, due to some significant distinctions. Firstly, the objectives of internal and external auditors, and the
work which they do, are different. The aim of external auditors is to formulate an opinion as to whether
financial statements are free of material misstatement, while the task of internal auditors is to assist senior
management and the board of directors with evaluating and managing risks, assessing compliance with laws
and regulations, and evaluating operational efficiency (e.g. Eilifsen, Messier, Glover, & Prawitt, 2006).
Secondly, internal audits are conducted within a single entity, and there are hierarchical links between the IA
function and other parts of the organization (such as management, or the board of directors/audit committee).
The external auditing literature does not consider these specificities, suggesting a need for further research.
The second contribution of the paper deals with the methodology adopted. Most of current works on IA
competence move from a pre-defined list of competencies and tested it through a survey method (Vinten,
2004; Abdolmohammadi et al., 2006; Ernst &Young, 2008; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007, 2008, 2010;
Protiviti, 2011). In this paper, we move from a competence model, that is widely adopted in the competence
literature, and we applied it to the case of the IA, complementing quantitative analysis with a case study
method. This approach allowed us to analyze more in details the motivations at the basis of the development
of a specific competence profile for IA and the factors influencing it.
The reminder of the paper is articulated as follows. Section 2 presents the Cheetham & Chivers (1998)
model, that we propose as a valuable model to analyse IA competences. Section 3 discusses the method used
for data collection and analysis. Section 4 describes the findings of the study and we conclude in section 5.
Theoretical framework
The model selected for the development of the study is the “holistic model of professional competence”
proposed by Cheetham & Chivers (1998) (in Figure 1). The model was elaborated with the aim of bringing
together in a single holistic model the coherent elements among the approaches suggested before by various
authors.
Figure 1: Holistic model of professional competence (source: Cheetham & Chivers (1998))
Cheetham e Chivers’s model consists of four key components, that are thought to be strictly intertwined:
knowledge/cognitive competence, functional competence, personal or behavioural competence,
values/ethical competence. Knowledge/cognitive competence has been defined by the authors as the
possession of appropriate work-related knowledge and the ability to put this to effective use. Functional
competence is defined as the ability to perform a range of work-based tasks effectively to produce specific
outcomes. Personal or behavioural competence is the ability to adopt appropriate, observable behaviours in
work-related situations. Values/ethical competence is defined as the possession of appropriate personal and
professional values and the ability to make sound judgments based upon these in work-related situations.
Each core component is made up of a number of “constituents”: sub-groups of individual competencies
which are similar to each another.
In the representation of the model the authors highlight that, although conceptually separated, the four core
components may be in practice interrelated at different levels.
Overarching the four core components are a number of meta-competencies (such as: communication, self-
development, creativity, analysis and problem solving) which assist in developing other competencies (an
example is self-development) or are capable of enhancing or mediating competency in any or all of the
component categories (an example is creativity).
Cheetham and Chivers’s model affords equal prominence to each of the core components. However,
recognizing the possibility that different professions or different branches within the same profession will
require a different mix of the core components or will assign them different relevance, the authors developed
a complementary model named “occupational competence mix model”, represented in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Occupational competence mix model (source: Cheetham & Chivers (1996))
The relative importance of each of the core components for different occupations is indicated by the width of
the corresponding sector of the circle. The outer circle includes meta-competencies, which can be required in
different proportions depending on the profession. The tridimensional version of the occupational
competence mix model (see Figure 3) highlights that, even after acquiring the appropriate combination of
competencies for their profession, a professional can further develop each of the core components increasing
their expertise within each for the attainment of the highest levels of excellence in terms of professional
performance. The development will proceed at different rhythms for the different areas; this is represented
through the difference in height of the sectors. Similar considerations apply to meta-competencies, although
for simplicity they are not shown. This tridimensional view of the model takes the name of “individual
competence mix model”.
Figure 3: Individual competence mix model (source: Cheetham & Chivers (1996))
The main reason for the choice of Cheetham and Chivers’s (1998) model for the development of the study
described in the present paper is the holistic nature of this model which, coherently bringing together the
elements of the approaches previously suggested by various researchers, proposes a comprehensive
classification of competences, a property particularly relevant given the width and variety of the skills set
required for an internal auditor.
Other characteristics that determined the choice of the model are: specific reference to professional
competence, as may be defined the one expected from internal auditors (see, for example, Reynolds, 2000,
Sarens et al., 2009, Arena & Jeppesen, 2010, Sarens & Abdolmohammadi, 2010); the explicit recognition of
the linkages and interrelationships between different groups and different attributes, which highlights the
complexity of the skills profile of a professional.
Research method
The empirical analysis has been based on a multiple case study, involving fourteen Italian organizations from
four different industries and different normative contexts: energy, manufacturing, financial services and IT.
The table below shows the main descriptive parameters of the selected organizations. For reasons of
confidentiality, we have used pseudonyms in place of the companies’ real names.
CASE SALES LISTED
FIN1 > 1000 mln € Yes
FIN2 < 500 mln € Yes
FIN3 500-1.000 mln € Yes
FIN4 < 500 mln € No
ENE1 > 1.000 mln € No
ENE2 > 1.000 mln € Yes
ENE3 > 1.000 mln € Yes
IT1 > 1.000 mln € Yes
IT2 500-1.000 mln € Yes
IT3 > 1.000 mln € Yes
MAN1 > 1.000 mln € Yes
MAN2 > 1.000 mln € Yes
MAN3 > 1.000 mln € Yes
MAN4 500-1.000 mln € Yes
Table 1: Case settings
The data were collected in 2011. The main source of data were: a questionnaire, filled before the interview,
semi-structured interviews and internal documentation.
Before the interview, the interviewees were required to fill a qualitative questionnaire where they were asked
to evaluate the relevance of a list of IA competencies using a 7 point Likert scale. This questionnaire was
developed moving from Cheetham & Chivers (1998) model, where specific competencies were defined
based on the IA literature (Brody & Lowe, 2000; Ratliff & Reding, 2002; Ramamoorti, 2003; Ahlawat &
Lowe, 2004; Giansante, 2009) and the IIA competency framework. Each competency was described in
operational terms and some examples were provided to clarify potential ambiguities.
Knowledge / Cognitive competence
Accounting principles
Business understanding
International standards of auditing
Information technology
Industry specificities
Internal control frameworks (COSO, COSO ERM)
Laws and regulations
Organizational specificities
Functional competence
Computer aided audit techniques (basic office productivity SW)
Computer aided audit techniques (advance SW packages and business intelligence tools)
Data and information analysis
Interview preparation and conduction
Planning
Project and time management
Reporting
Research and investigation (process analysis)
Risk identification and assessment
Personal / behavioural competence
Facilitation
Leadership
Negotiation
Promotion
Relationship management
Teamwork
Values / ethical competence
Ethical responsibility
International Standards for the Professional Practice
Objectivity
Meta-competencies
Communication
Creativity
Flexibility
Problem solving
Reflection and learning
Self develompment
Table 2: The competence framework
The researchers analysed the key features of the chosen companies based on available documentation
(financial reports, corporate governance reports, organizational chart available on the websites). Then, a face
to face interview was performed. Although with flexibility, the interview protocol addressed the following
issues. Related to the competencies considered more relevant by the internal auditors, we discussed the
ranking provided by the interviewees and we tried to understand how this ranking was changed over time.
Moving to the second RQ, we tackled the analysis of the drivers of IA competence profile, identifying some
recurrent factors that influence IA competencies in different cases analyzed. In several cases, the
interviewees discussed with us internal documentation, such as a competence chart and the competence
scheme used for hiring policies. The interviews lasted between 60 and 120 minutes and were all type
recorded and subsequently transcribed. After the interview, the interviewees received a report with the
transcript of the interview and the mapping of the IA competences based on Cheetham and Chivers’s (1998)
model. This report became the basis of further discussions and feed-backs.
Findings
The competence profile
First, we identified which competencies were considered most relevant by the interviewees, based on the
questionnaire they were asked to fill. The data collected were discussed with the interviewees, leading in the
end to the following ranking:
Competencies Ranking
Ethical responsibility 6,7
Relationship management 6,7
Data and information analysis 6,6
Objectivity 6,6
Communication 6,4
Organizational specificities 6,3
Project and time management 6,3
Risk identification and assessment 6,2
Self develompment 6,2
Reporting 6,1
Negotiation 6,1
Flexibility 6,1
Teamwork 6,1
Interview preparation and conduction 6,0
Problem solving 5,9
Planning 5,8
Leadership 5,8
Laws and regulations 5,7
Reflection and learning 5,7
Research and investigation (process analysis) 5,6
Promotion 5,6
Facilitation 5,5
International Standards for the Professional Practice 5,5
Creativity 5,5
Internal control frameworks (COSO, COSO ERM) 5,4
Business understanding 5,4
Computer aided audit techniques (basic office productivity software) 5,1
Accounting principles 4,5
International standards of auditing 4,4
Computer aided audit techniques (advance SW packages and business intelligence tools) 4,0
Information technology 3,8
Industry specificities 3,7
Table 3: The competence ranking
The comparison of data across the four industries is reported in the figures below, where different
competence categories are compared by industry sector.
Figure 4: Knowledge / cognitive competence
Figure 5: Functional competence
Figure 6: Personal / behavioural competence
Figure 7: Values / ethical competence
Figure 8: Values / ethical competence
The data analysis did not highlight much difference in the competence profile considered relevant in
different industry sectors. The main variations were related to few competencies, related to the knowledge
and cognitive sphere - in particular accounting principles, international standards of auditing, industry
specificities - and professional competence, and in particular to the International Standards for the
Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. Functional and behavioral competence resulted quite aligned in
the companies analyzed.
Exploring the evolution of IA competencies through the years, we found a more diversified situation.
In particular, interviewees from the banking-insurance sector claimed that a clear evolution of the role of
internal auditors and of the associated skills had taken place in the last decade. The interviewees in this
sector highlighted an increase in the importance of the behavioral competence. They claimed that has
become fundamental to convince the auditees that the purpose of the activities of the IA function is not
merely the detection of errors, but the improvement of the control processes.
“Unlike inspectors, internal auditors do not stop at verification and denunciation of the “culprits”,
but are willing to debate, dialogue and reasoning with the auditees to reach a shared view and
determine the possible solutions to the identified problems”[…] “Unfortunately this change has
been understood by the internal auditors, but not by most of the other people in the organizations,
who have not abandoned the hostile attitude that characterized their relationships with the
inspectorate”. (CAE)
In the IT industry, the interviewees gave much more prominence to a shift of attention in relationship to the
knowledge and cognitive sphere. In particular, they claimed that the main change occurred in connection of
IA activities could be traced backed to procedures and activities related to the enactment of new regulations
such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the United States and the 262 in Italy.
In the other two industries, energy and manufacturing, the interviewees pinpointed a widening of the
technical competencies required by the internal auditors, due to new regulations, relevance of IT and
sustainability issues.
Compared to the other industry fields, in the case of the manufacturing industry, more attention was given to
the consulting role of the IA.
Organizational drivers of IA competence profile
The second research question dealt with the drivers of the evolution of the IA competence profiles.
As follows, for each competence dimension, we discuss the main factors that the interviewees used to
explain the importance given to specific groups of competencies and their evolution over time.
Knowledge/cognitive competence
The primary driver of the knowledge/cognitive competence resulted to be the type of activities performed by
the IA function. If the principal activity of the function is financial auditing, the importance of the knowledge
of auditing and accounting principles increases; if prevailing attention is given to compliance auditing, the
relevance of knowledge of laws and regulations grows. The knowledge of industry and organizational
specificities resulted more important where the IA functions are more focused on operational auditing.
The second factor that emerged from the interviews as a relevant driver of knowledge/cognitive competence
was the CAE’s background. The CAE gives its “imprimatur” to the IA function, driving, at least partially,
the type of activities performed, and the balance between different approaches. This factor resulted
particularly true in connection to the relevance assigned to the knowledge of internal control frameworks
(COSO, COSO ERM). They were considered particularly important in banks and insurance companies and
also in those cases, where the CAE had a prior experience in the financial industry.
Besides the above elements, that are mainly related to the IA unit, some organizational and contextual factors
emerged as relevant drivers of IA knowledge/cognitive competencies. These include elements such as
corporate organizational structure, existence of a risk management unit, age and size of the company. For
instance, the presence of units specifically dedicated to financial and compliance risks reduces the tension
towards competencies related to revision and laws and regulations respectively. Obviously, these
competencies are still considered important, but the IA recognize the existence of specialists that are
dedicated to the matter, whilst they can focus on the design of internal control. The existence of a large IT
function influences the importance given to IT knowledge, though at a different extent. On the one hand, the
relevance of IT systems in relationship to the core business of the company requires more advanced IT
auditing activities, determining a higher demand for knowledge related to information technology. On the
other hand, in companies where IT units are more structured and characterized by formal procedures, internal
auditors rely on the IT function for carrying out controls and extracting data from the corporate information
system.
Finally, the context in which the company competes impacts primarily on the importance of the knowledge
of laws and regulations.
Functional competence
As in the case of knowledge/ cognitive competence, functional competence resulted to be influenced, at least
partially, by the range of activities performed by the IA function.
For instance, the interviewees related interviewing competence to the focus of the IA function on operational
auditing, and the need of understanding the functioning of operational processes. Conversely, where the IA
function focuses on compliance, the ability of interviewing resulted to be less relevant, since internal auditors
claimed to rely on documentary analysis much more compared to the prior case. Consulting activities
resulted to require some specific functional competencies, such as planning capabilities (due to the need of
estimating the time to be allocated to this type of activity and to adjust the audit plan in consideration of
management extemporary requests) and time management. Planning and time management capabilities were
told to be particularly appreciated by top management, who demands the respect of the agreed audit plan and
the timely communication of the results of the interventions.
The second factor that was considered important in influencing functional competence is the level of variety
and complexity of processes of the organization. In particular, interviewing skills, and research and
investigation were considered to be increasingly relevant when the level of complexity of processes
increases, because it allows to achieve a better understanding of the activities performed.
Finally, a further driver of functional competence was the regulatory setting in which the company competes;
in particular, the severity of the specific regulation may affect the relevance of reporting skills, since audit
reports might more easily be subject to judicial attachment because of a higher chance of involvement of the
company in external investigation.
Personal and behavioral competence
The interviewees underlined the relevance of personal and behavioral competencies (interpersonal abilities
and facilitation skills) primary in connection to consulting activities, hence again suggesting the existence of
a strict relationship between the activities performed and IA competence profile. Focus on consulting
activities made the internal auditors more aware of the importance of interpersonal ability and leadership,
that enable the development of a fruitful relationship with both top management and the auditees, thanks to a
certain degree of empathy, the acquisition of authoritativeness and the reduction of misunderstandings.
The second driver of personal and behavioral competence was the level of dynamism and uncertainty to
which the company is subject. Facilitation, negotiation, relationship management allow internal auditors to
deal with a changing environment, where they need to identify and understand the triggers that could alter
the status quo.
Values and ethical competence
A further factor that emerged from the interviews as a relevant driver of values and ethical competence was
the CAE’s background. This factor resulted to play an important role in connection to professional
knowledge (standards, code of ethics…). The International Standards for the Professional Practice were
considered particularly important in banks and insurance companies and also in those cases, where the CAE
had a prior experience in the financial industry. On the contrary, in the field of consulting and IT services the
relevance of these skills was considered more limited (where business understanding was generally ranked
higher).
A further factor that resulted to have an influence on professional knowledge relates to the organizational
structure and the size of the IA function. In most of the analyzed cases, International Standards for the
Professional Practice represent a methodological reference, that is not ranked too much high. However, in
larger IA functions, where, in particular, internal auditors are located in different places (either in Italy or in
foreign countries) they become a basis for the adoption of a uniform and homogeneous approach to IA
activities.
Meta competencies
As regards meta-competencies, the variety of processes in the organization increases the relevance of
flexibility, which allows internal auditors to adapt easily to different situations and quickly reach an adequate
understanding of the process under examination. Multidisciplinarity and interconnection of processes
contribute to the need for creativity.
Conclusions
This paper aimed to analyze the evolution of internal auditors’ competence profile in response to the
changing role of the IA, and identify key drivers influencing this evolution at the organizational level. Based
on data collected through a case study method, we explored the competence profile of the internal auditors in
14 companies competing in four different industries: financial service, energy, IT and consulting service,
manufacturing. For the analysis we relied on the “holistic model of professional competence” proposed by
Cheetham & Chivers (1998), that identify four key components, strictly intertwined: knowledge/cognitive
competence, functional competence, personal or behavioral competence, values/ethical competence.
Overarching the four core components, there are a number of meta-competencies which assist in developing
or enhancing other competencies. This model was chosen due to its holistic nature, suitable to comprehend
different elements that emerged as crucial in both the professional and the academic IA literature: in fact the
specific competencies that were included in different core components were defined based on the IA
literature (Brody & Lowe, 2000; Ratliff & Reding, 2002; Ramamoorti, 2003; Ahlawat & Lowe, 2004;
Giansante, 2009) and the IIA competency framework.
The data analysis allowed to highlight some results that can potentially contribute to the current debate on IA
competence profile, and a systemic analysis of these results could help to better understand their relevance,
implications and limitations.
First, the paper clarifies that a strong relationship between the competence profile of the internal auditors and
the activities performed by the IA function is generally acknowledged. This link is somehow obvious since
competencies and activities preformed are naturally interrelated and the importance of ensuring coherence
between the two elements resulted almost ‘taken for granted’ by most of the interviewees. However,
analyzing the data, the relevance of ensuring such coherence also when the context changes due to both
external and internal pressures appeared to be less obvious. It is widely acknowledged that a change in the
‘mission’ of IA took place in the last years, with internal auditors paying much more attention to provide
companies with “value adding” services, thanks to both assurance and consulting activities. This change
should have led companies to a simultaneous and consistent ‘redesigning’ of its processes and skills.
However, this change clearly emerged only in few cases leading to some discrepancies: on the one hand, the
interviewees recognized the change that is occurring to the IA; on the other hand, only in some case, this
change led to a new competence profile.
The second set of results concerns those items that resulted to be considered less important in (some of) the
analyzed companies. In particular, the data shows how the items related to business understanding and
industry specificities were among the ones that were given a lower ranking (5,4 and 3,7 respectively). The
interviewees justified the low evaluations given to these items with the prominence of methodological
approaches. However, IA stakeholders often claimed the importance of these specific competencies. Indeed,
the results of academic research published in the last years seem to suggest that IA stakeholders do not
always consider internal auditors sufficiently competent due to the lack of these competencies (Griffiths,
1999; Van Peursem, 2004; 2005). Similarly, professional knowledge was sometimes ranked lower than other
competencies, in particular in some industry sectors. The item related to professional knowledge was
actually one the items subject to higher variation among companies, ranging from 3 to 7, with an average
score of 5,5. This situation potentially suggests a different level of penetration of the professional body in
different industries. Finally, if we consider the items related to information technologies, again we have to
highlight that they appear at the bottom of the ranking, suggesting a gap between the importance that IT is
gaining in business and the possibilities of exploiting it for carrying out IA activities.
In the interpretation of the findings of this study, however, some limitations need to be recognized.
The research approach was based on a case study methodology, therefore the knowledge produced with such
an approach is not generalized as it provides a model for this specific context of action (Yin, 1994).
However, it allows for the generation of more common or universal hypotheses on IA competence that may
be used in other studies. Future research might seek to extend our results, performing an extensive
investigation with a survey methodology using a quantitative approach. This would make it possible to
generalize the observed patterns to a wider sample of companies. Finally, the research was carried out in
only one country, i.e. Italy, being representative of IA in continental European countries. Future research
could examine the issue of IA competence throughout a variety of national settings.
References
Abdolmohammadi, M. J. (2009). Factors associated with the use of and compliance with the IIA standards:
A study of Anglo-culture CAEs. International Journal of Auditing, 13(1), 27-42.
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., & Shanteau, J. (1992). Personal attributes of expert auditors. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(2), 158-172.
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., Shanteau, J., & Searfoss, D. G. (2004). An investigation of the attributes of top
industry audit specialists. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 16, 1-17.
Ahlawat, S. S., & Lowe, D. J. (2004). An examination of internal auditor objectivity: Inhouse versus
outsourcing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(2), 149-160.
Arena, M., & Jeppesen, K. K. (2010). The jurisdiction of internal auditing and the quest for
professionalization: The danish case. International Journal of Auditing, 14(2), 111-129.
Bonner, S. E., & Pennington, N. (1991). Cognitive processes and knowledge as determinants of auditor
expertise. Journal of Accounting Literature, 10, 1-50.
Bonner, S. E., & Walker, P. L. (1994). The effects of instruction and experience on the acquisition of
auditing knowledge. The Accounting Review, 69(1), pp. 157-178.
Bota-Avram, C., & Palfi, C. (2009). Measuring and assessment of internal audit's effectiveness. Annals of
Faculty of Economics, 3, 784-790
Bou-Raad, G. (2000). Internal auditors and a value-added approach: The new business regime. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 15(4), 182-187.
Brody, R. G., & Lowe, D. J. (2000). The new role of the internal auditor: Implications for internal auditor
objectivity. International Journal of Auditing, 4(2), 169-176.
Burnaby, P., & Hass, S. (2009). A summary of the global common body of knowledge 2006 (CBOK) study
in internal auditing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 24(9), 813-834.
Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1996). Towards a holistic model of professional competence. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 20(5), 20-30.
Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: A model of professional
competence which seeks to harmonise the reflective practitioner and competence-based approaches. Journal
of European Industrial Training, 22(7), 267-276.
Ebaid, I. E. (2011). Internal audit function: An exploratory study from Egyptian listed firms. International
Journal of Law and Management, 53(2; 1754-243), 108-128.
Ernest & Young. (2008). Escalating the role of internal audit. EYGM Limited
Flesher, D. L., & Zanzig, J. S. (2000). Management accountants express a desire for change in the
functioning of internal auditing. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(7), 331-337
Giansante, P. (2009). Aspetti organizzativi e dimensione umana nella funzione di internal auditing. In
Internal auditing. contenuto, struttura e processo (pp. 119-149). Edizioni Univ. Romane.
Griffiths, P. (1999). Understanding the expectation of finance directors towards internal audit and its future.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 14, 489-496.
Hunton, J. E., & Wright, G. B. (1995). How information systems managers view internal auditors. Internal
Auditing, 11(2), 33-43.
IIA. (2010). Internal Auditor Competency Framework Accessible on line at http://theiia.org
IIA UK and Ireland. (2008). Towards a blueprint for the internal audit profession.
Leech, T. (2009). The global economic crisis: Could internal audit have helped prevent it? Accessible on-
Line at Http://www.Accaglobal.com/pubs/economy/analysis/acca/internal/economy_090309_3.Pdf
Libby, R., & Luft, J. (1993). Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability,
knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(5), 425-450.
Libby, R., & Tan, H. (1994). Modeling the determinants of audit expertise. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 19(8), 701-716.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007). Internal audit 2012 - A study examining the future of internal auditing and
the potential decline of a controls-centric approach. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2008). Targeting key threats and changing expectations to deliver greater value -
state of the internal audit profession study. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2010). A future rich in opportunity - internal audit must seize opportunities to
enhance its relevancy. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
Protiviti (2011). 2011 internal audit capabilities and needs survey.
Ramamoorti, S. (2003). Internal auditing: History, evolution and prospects. In Research opportunities in
internal auditing (pp. 1-23). The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation.
Ratliff, R. L., & Reding, K. F. (2002). Introduction to auditing: Logic, principles, and techniques.
Reynolds, M. A. (2000). Professionalism, ethical codes and the internal auditor: A moral argument. Journal
of Business Ethics, 24(2), 115-124.
Rittenberg, L., & Anderson, R. J. (2006). A strategic player - hiring and inspiring a chief audit executive.
Journal of Accountancy, 202, 51-54.
Sarens, G. (2009). Internal auditing research: Where are we going? editorial. International Journal of
Auditing, 13, 1-7.
Sarens, G., & Abdolmohammadi, M. (2010). Cultural dimension and professionalism and uniformity of
internal auditing practice. CAAA Annual Conference.
Senapalh, R. (2000). Internal audit: Five best practices. The Chartered Accountant of India, 27-30.
Spira, L. F., & Page, M. (2003). Risk management: The reinvention of internal control and the changing role
of internal audit. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 640-661.
Steyn, B., & Plant, K. (2009). Education and training considerations applicable to internal auditors in South
Africa. African Journal of Business Management, 3(13), 989-997.
Tan, H. (1999). Organizational levels and perceived importance of attributes for superior audit performance.
Abacus, 35(1), 77-90.
Tan, H., & Libby, R. (1997). Tacit managerial versus technical knowledge as determinants of audit expertise
in the field. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(1), pp. 97-113.
Turner, B. (2007). Internal audit and partnering with senior management. QFinance.
Van Peursem, K. A. (2005). Conversations with internal auditors: The power of ambiguity. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 20(5), 489-512.
Van Peursem, K. (2004). Internal auditors’ role and authority: New Zealand evidence. Managerial Auditing
Journal, 19(3), 378-393.
Venter, J., & de Bruyn, R. (2002). Reviewing the internal auditing function: Processes and procedures.
Meditari Accountancy Research, 10, 227-241.
Vinten, G. (2004). The future of UK internal audit education: Secularisation and submergence? Managerial
Auditing Journal, 19(5), 580-596.
Recommended
