Abstract
Computer auditing quality has been defined by results obtained in the process. Meanwhile, multiple studies have been done to enhance it therefore, it continues to be a topic interest and research so it is worth mentioning that its quality relies on trained competent auditors and experts able to develop a process correctly, adapting to clients and to manage auditing inherent risks. According to results from the computer audit, low quality and security levels have been identified in terms of the human, technical and contextual factors, affecting audit quality. The objective of this investigation is to identify metrics and to determine their own corresponding factor applying an exploratory type of research. To achieve such aim, a targeted survey was designed and implemented at the Institute of Internal Auditors of Ecuador since they have the knowledge and expertise in the field. A factor analysis statistics technique was applied to data gathered to verify that it relates to the identified factors as dimensions are reduced, thus the most impacting metrics may assess the quality of computer audits. Analysis results yielded a mean score for each one of the assessed metrics, concluding that the technical factor is the most significative since it relates roles and task performance during the auditing process as well as control procedures. Finally, most auditing quality-related issues are mainly the outcome of an inferior management auditing process, therefore it is crucial that collegiate groups and professionals in the field validate the auditing process.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bojorque, R., Pesántez-Avilés, F.: Academic quality management system audit using artificial intelligence techniques. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 965(28), 275–283 (2020)
Dickins, D., Johnson-Snyder, A.J., Reisch, J.T.: Selecting an auditor for Bradco using indicators of audit quality. J. Account. Educ. 45, 32–44 (2018)
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board: A framework for audit quality. International Federation of Accountants, New York (2014)
Sulaiman, N.A., Shahimi, S., Nashtar, K.: People and audit process attributes of audit quality: evidence from Malaysia. Manag. Account. Rev. 18(2), 47 (2019)
Yuniarti, R., Zumara, W.M.: Audit quality attributes and audit client satisfaction. Int. J. Humanit. Manag. Sci. 1(1), 96–100 (2013)
Knechel, W., Vanstraelen, A.: The relationship between auditor tenure and audit quality implied by going concern opinions. Auditing 26(1), 113–131 (2007)
Havelka, D., Merhout, J.W.: Internal information technology audit process quality: theory development using structured group processes. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 14(3), 165–192 (2013)
Imbaquingo Esparza, D.E., Ron Egas, M.B., Cajas Sinchiguano, F.A., Luje Misacango, R.A.: Evaluation model of computer audit methodologies based on inherent risk. Iber Conference Information System Technology Cist, pp. 24–27 (2020)
Holm, C., Zaman, M.: Regulating audit quality: restoring trust and legitimacy. Account. Forum 36(1), 51–61 (2012)
Knechel, W., Krishnan, G., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L., Velury, U.: Audit quality: insights from the academic literature. Auditing 32(1), 385–421 (2013)
Havelka, D., Merhout, J.W.: Development of an information technology audit process quality framework. Association of Information Systems - AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, no. 61, pp. 910–916 (2007)
Committee Contact of Heads of EU SAIs. Guidelines on Audit Quality, p. 57 (2004)
Yasin, F., Nelson, S.: Audit committee and internal audit: implications on audit quality. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Account. 20(2), 8–10 (2012)
Harris, M.K., Williams, L.T.: Audit quality indicators: perspectives from non-big four audit firms and small company audit committees. Adv. Account. 50, 100485 (2020)
Eilifsen, A., Knechel, W., Wallage, P.: Application of the business risk audit model: a field study. Account. Horizons 15(3), 193–207 (2001)
Zahmatkesh, S., Rezazadeh, J.: The effect of auditor features on audit quality. Tékhne 15(2), 79–87 (2017)
Hasas Yeghaneh, Y., Zangiabadi, M., Dehghani Firozabadi, S.M.: Factors affecting information technology audit Quality. J. Invest. Manag. 4(5), 196–203 (2015)
Stoel, D., Havelka, D., Merhout, J.W.: An analysis of attributes that impact information technology audit quality: a study of IT and financial audit practitioners. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 13(1), 60–79 (2012)
Ferrando, J., Anguiano, C.: El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles del Psicólogo 31(1), 18–33 (2010)
Guti, L.: Cómo realizar e interpretar un análisis factorial exploratorio utilizando SPSS. REIRE Rev. d Innovació i Recer. en Educ. 12(2), 1–14 (2019)
Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., Tomás-Marco, I.: El Análisis Factorial Exploratorio de los Ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. An. Psicol. 30(3), 1151–1169 (2014)
Carcello, J., Hermanson, R., McGrath, N.: Audit quality attributes: the perceptions of audit partners, preparers, and financial statement users. Audit. A J. Pract. Theory 11, 1–15 (1992)
Imbaquingo, D., San Pedro, L., Diaz, J., Saltos, T., Arciniega, S.: Let’s talk about computer audit quality: a systematic literature review. In: 2021 International Conference on Maintenance and Intelligent Asset Management (ICMIAM), pp. 1–7 (2021)
de la Fuente, S.: Análisis Factorial, Madrid (2011)
Sulaiman, N.A., Yasin, F.M., Muhamad, R.: Perspectives on audit quality: an analysis. Asian J. Account. Perspect. 11(1), 1–27 (2018)
Ye, K., Cheng, Y., Gao, J.: How individual auditor characteristics impact the likelihood of audit failure: evidence from China. Adv. Account. 30(2), 394–401 (2014)
Guindel, E.: Calidad y seguridad de la información y auditoría informática. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Leganés (2010)
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Concept Release on Audit Quality Indicators, PCAOB, no. 005, pp. 1–61 (2015)
Strous, L.: Audit of information systems: the need for cooperation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subser. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 1521, pp. 264–274 (2002)
Xiao, T., Geng, C., Yuan, C.: How audit effort affects audit quality: an audit process and audit output perspective. China J. Account. Res. 13(1), 109–127 (2020)
Refaat, R., El-Henawy, I.M.: Innovative method to evaluate quality management system audit results’ using single value neutrosophic number. Cogn. Syst. Res. 57, 197–206 (2019)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A. Computer Auditing Quality Metrics
Appendix A. Computer Auditing Quality Metrics
Code | Metric | Source |
---|---|---|
M1 | Auditing team leader or individual possesses leadership skills | |
M2 | The (auditee)organization’s representative possesses leadership skills | |
M3 | Personnel performing the audit has ample auditor experience | |
M4 | Auditing team members demonstrate honesty and respect when doing their job | |
M5 | Members of the auditing team perform their audit ethically and transparently | |
M6 | Auditor team keeps a cordial and verbal and written respectful relationship with the auditee | |
M7 | Auditing team fulfills client requirements | |
M8 | Auditor knows how to listen and is receptive to the client | |
M9 | Auditing team makes sure the client takes part in the entire auditing process | |
M10 | Auditing team has client approval of the tasks developed | |
M11 | Auditing team and client direct efforts to a common goal | |
M12 | Personnel performing the audit the required competence to perform their job | |
M13 | Auditing personnel has the ability to deal with sensitive situations | |
M14 | Auditing personnel exhibits assertiveness in problem solving and demanding situations | |
M15 | Auditor possesses soft skills personal characteristics and competencies that demonstrate the auditor gets along with others | |
M16 | Auditing personnel effective suggestions to the institution to be audited | |
M17 | Auditing personnel has observation skills | |
M18 | Auditor respects client information and confidentiality | |
M19 | Auditor keeps an open mind when new ideas are suggested | |
M20 | Auditor is confident of himself and his job | |
M21 | Auditing team continues being independent in appearance and action | |
M22 | Auditing team does not get involved in activities that compromise their independence | |
M23 | Auditor reports to the person in charge events that may affect his independence | |
M24 | Auditing team focuses on facts | |
M25 | Auditing team demonstrates objectivity and integrity | |
M26 | Auditing team executes the audit impartially and with no prejudice | |
M27 | Auditing team is supported to reach their goals | [16] |
M28 | Auditing team demonstrates a great deal of effort to perform the audit | [30] |
M29 | The auditor is concerned for his training and continuing training | [26] |
M30 | Auditor has national and international certifications in the auditing and computer auditing field | [26] |
M31 | Auditor exhibits skepticism during the entire auditing process | |
M32 | Auditing team expertise add value to the auditee –the organization | |
M33 | Members of auditing team demonstrate confidence regarding information security and data processing | |
M34 | Clients disputes are dealt with appropriately and objectively | |
M35 | Auditing team is available to attend to clients inquiries | |
M36 | Those involved in the audit keep frequent communication | |
M37 | Auditing team hold regular formal indelible meetings for analyses progress and results | [13] |
M38 | Auditors link up with experts as a support in the auditing process to obtain client recommendations and results | [11] |
M39 | Auditing team appropriately selects consultants and experts | [11] |
M40 | Auditor follows policies and procedures that regulate ethical and professional compliance | |
M41 | Auditing team uses templates and forms to document the process | [9] |
M42 | Auditing team has approval procedures for completed auditing tasks | [9] |
M43 | Auditor and those responsible for the organization auditee- follow up on auditing previous computer auditing issues | |
M44 | Audit findings and conclusions are an exact reflection of the audited process real facts | |
M45 | Auditing results are totally supported and documented by auditing gathered evidence | |
M46 | Members of the auditing team and those responsible for the institution protect at all times information used in the process | [29] |
M47 | Auditing team achieves objectives planned in the auditing | |
M48 | Findings, conclusions, and recommendations were positively approved by the client | |
M49 | Auditing assigned resources go accordingly to audit relevance and complexity | |
M50 | System, process, and audited subject is important to the organization | [12] |
M51 | Client understands the process and purpose of the computer auditing | [12] |
M52 | In the scope, all required elements for a successful audit are addressed | |
M53 | Audit execution complies with the elements agreed in the scope | |
M54 | Results are delivered in the appropriate and established time | [12] |
M55 | Risk evaluating model is comprehensive | |
M56 | Auditing plan takes into account client-related risks | |
M57 | Auditing team is committed to the auditing completion deadline | |
M58 | Auditing process is developed accurately | [3] |
M59 | Results from the auditing report are clean and concise | |
M60 | Scope, findings, and recommendations are understandable for anyone that makes use of the audit report | |
M61 | Reports presentation is done under policies, standards, manuals, practice, and computer guidelines | |
M62 | Auditing team performs fieldwork adequately | |
M63 | Auditing is executed under computer auditing policies, standards, manuals, guidelines, and practice | |
M64 | Auditing team is having ample knowledge of auditing evidence gathering techniques | |
M65 | All tasks are developed according to planned | |
M66 | Verification lists are completed, approved, and documented | |
M67 | Work field is checked by an expert | |
M68 | Client or those responsible for the organization provide data gathering support | |
M69 | Information and results from previous audits are available for revision | |
M70 | Auditing plan is developed according to computer auditing policies, standards, manuals, guidelines, and practice | |
M71 | Objectives and auditing scope are appropriately specified | |
M72 | Auditing tasks and tools are clearly described | |
M73 | Auditing team members have a clear and coherent understanding of the auditing plan | |
M74 | Budget and audit schedule are set up adequately | |
M75 | Required resources to perform the auditing are evaluated | |
M76 | Personnel and equipment required assigned by the auditing are evaluated | |
M77 | Auditing plan is addressed, made, checked, and approved by supervisors and those responsible for the organization and auditing team members | |
M78 | Auditing team uses computer auditing methodology to plan, manage and develop audits | |
M79 | Auditing team uses technological tools and updated methodologies to perform their job | |
M80 | An institution organizational structure is reflected on the auditing plan | |
M81 | Auditor promotes through an organizational culture based on computer security good practice | |
M82 | Auditing team follows strict quality procedures | |
M83 | The auditing team leader is committed to quality control systems | |
M84 | Norms and regulations issued by control organisms are reflected on auditing plans | |
M85 | Auditing team presents recommendations that the organization should follow because of international standard updates, local regulation, strategic objectives and change in the auditing environment | |
M86 | Auditing team is knowledgeable in terms of relevant information of the laws and regulations that may have a significant impact on audit objectives | |
M87 | Auditing team has the required permits to develop and auditing process | |
M88 | Disciplinary measures are applied in case of auditing plan or current regulatory legal standards non-compliance | |
M89 | Auditing team es fully prepared before the risk of litigation | |
M90 | Auditing team has access to technical and human resources for a specialized audit | [17] |
M91 | Auditing team has access to required resources to comply with the scope and auditing calendar | [17] |
M92 | Audit cost commensurate with tasks developed and complexity | |
M93 | Auditing team is aware of internal controls | [28] |
M94 | Auditing team identify client internal control system key elements | [28] |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Imbaquingo, D., San Pedro, L., Díaz, J., Arciniega, S., Saltos, T., Ortega, C. (2022). Computer Auditing Quality Assessment Based on Human, Technical and Contextual Factors. In: Guarda, T., Portela, F., Augusto, M.F. (eds) Advanced Research in Technologies, Information, Innovation and Sustainability. ARTIIS 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1676. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20316-9_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20316-9_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20315-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20316-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)