adha assignment

Question Description


https://online.fiu.edu/videos/?vpvid=5f69b001-5542…

Watch the Teaching the LD Child video and participate in a discussion with classmates on the discussion forum. Posts should reference the videos and the reading material and should demonstrate that you read and understand the assigned textbook chapter. The grading rubric is posted. You will earn up to 5 points for each video discussion assignment, based on your quality and quantity of participation. Your discussion grade will be posted within a week of the due date

Click for the Chapter 21 Notes:



ISSN: 2278-3369
International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Factors Influencing Sample Size for Internal Audit Evidence Collection in the
Public Sector in Kenya
Kamau, Charles Guandaru*, Kariuki, Samuel Nduati
*Corresponding Author: E-mail: guandaruaman@yahoo.co.uk
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya.
Abstract
The internal audit department has a role of providing objective assurance and consulting services designed to add
value and improve an organization’s operations. In performing this role the internal auditors are required to provide
an auditor’s opinion which is supported by sufficient and reliable audit evidence. Since auditors are not in a position to
examine 100% of the records and transactions, they are required to sample a few and make conclusions on the basis of
the sample selected. The literature suggests several factors which affects the sample size for audit purposes of the
internal auditors in the public sector in Kenya. This research collected data from 32 public sector internal auditors.
The research carried out simple regression and correlation analysis on the data collected so as to test hypotheses
and make conclusions on the factors affecting the sample size for audit purposes of the internal auditors in the public
sector in Kenya. The study found out that that materiality of audit issue, type of information available, source of
information, degree of risk of misstatement and auditor skills and independence are some of the factors influencing the
sample size determination for the purposes of internal audit evidence collection in public sector in Kenya.
Keywords: Audit evidence, Internal auditors, Materiality, Sample size.
Introduction
ISA 500 requires that the auditors should design
and perform audit procedures that are appropriate
in the circumstance for the purpose of obtaining
sufficient and appropriate evidence. It further
explains that audit evidence is necessary to support
the auditor’s opinion and report. It is cumulative in
nature and is primarily obtained from audit
procedures performed during the course of the
audit. It may, however, also include information
obtained from other sources such as previous audits
or a firm’s quality control procedures for client
acceptance and continuance. In addition to other
sources inside and outside the entity, the entity’s
accounting records are an important source of audit
evidence. Auditors may not be in a position to carry
out 100% examination and verification of records
and transactions. Therefore auditors use sampling
concept to choose a sample of records and
transactions, carry out examination of the sample
and use the results to draw conclusions about the
fairness of a company´s financial statements.
Consequently, auditors can only provide assurance
but not absolute assurance that the financial
statements are fairly presented [1].The internal
auditing standards asserts that an internal auditor
has a professional duty and an ethical
responsibility to evaluate carefully all the evidence
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
and the reasonableness of his or her conclusions
and, then, to decide whether further actions may be
needed to protect the interests of the organization,
its stakeholders, the outside community, or the
institutions of society [2].Internal audit aims to
increase the accountability of government
ministries by ensuring transparency, validating key
systems of internal control, and committing
resources against key risks. To achieve this task
the internal auditors are required to collect audit
evidence to support their findings. Audit evidence
collected is on the basis of sampling technique that
helps the auditors to collect and analyze the
required information. This research looks into the
various factors affect the size of the sample that the
auditors will select for the purpose of audit
evidence collection.
Statement of the Problem
Internal auditing is defined by IIA as an
independent, objective assurance and consulting
activity designed to add value and improve an
organization’s operations. The Internal audit helps
an organization achieve its objectives by bringing a
systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and
improve the effectiveness of risk management,
control, and governance processes [2] Internal
42
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
auditor’s opinion should be supported by sufficient
and reliable audit evidence. IIA proposes that
internal auditors in the process of providing
assurance should carry out objective examination of
evidence for the purpose of providing an
independent assessment on risk management,
control, or governance processes for the
organization [2]. Beasley, Carcello and Hermanson
[3] observed that the most common problem found
in 80% of the cases, was the auditor’s failure to
gather sufficient audit evidence. Many of the cases
which they studied involved inadequate evidence in
areas such as asset valuation, asset ownership and
management representations.Gathering internal
audit evidence is a challenge for many auditors
since they are required to carry out their work
independently yet at the same time they are part of
management. Attitude of the auditees towards the
internal auditor complicates the process of audit
evidence gathering. This study therefore sought to
explore the factors affecting the sample size for
internal audit evidence collection in public sector in
Kenya.
Objectives of the Study
• To find out the effect of materiality on the sample
size for internal audit evidence collection
• To identify the effect of type of information on the
sample size for internal audit evidence collection
• To identify the effect of source of information on
the sample size for internal audit evidence
collection
• To evaluate the effect of degree of risk of
misstatement on the sample size for internal
audit evidence collection
• To determine the effect of auditor skills and
independence on the sample size for internal audit
evidence collection
Hypothesis of the Study
The null hypotheses are stated as follows.
• Materiality of the audit issue has no effect on the
sample size for internal audit evidence collection.
• There is no relationship between type of
information available and the sample size for
internal audit evidence collection.
• There is no relationship between source of
information and the sample size for internal audit
evidence collection.
• There is no relationship between degree of risk of
misstatement and the sample size for internal
audit evidence collection.
• There is no relationship between auditor skills &
auditor independence and the sample size for
internal audit evidence collection.
Justification
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
Audit evidence gathering is fundamental in
carrying out audit engagements. It’s on the basis of
the audit evidence gathered that the internal
auditor makes conclusions about an audit issue.
Gathering audit evidence is a complex activity
which depends on a number of factors,
understanding these factors is important for the
internal auditors. This research may be of great
significance in improving the performance of the
auditors in the public sector.
Conceptual Framework
Conceptual framework is a visual or written
product that explains graphically or in narrative
form, the main things to be studied. It describes the
key factors, concepts, and variables and the
presumed relationship among them [4]. According
to Nachmias, “the variable that the researcher
wishes to explain is the dependent variable.” The
independent variable causes or explains changes in
the dependent variable. In this research, the
internal audit evidence was the dependent
variable.Several factors may influence the internal
audit sufficiency in public sector in Kenya. These
factors become the independent variables in this
research. They include:
Materiality of the Audit Issue
The internal audit evidence required largely
depends on the materiality level of the audit issue
being considered. The researcher expected that the
higher the materiality level the higher the sample
size required for audit evidence collection.
Type of Information Available
The researcher expected that the type or nature of
information available will affect the sample size
that will be required for internal audit evidence
collection.
Source of Information
The information source also affects the sample size
required for internal audit evidence collection. The
size of the sample will depend on whether the
information is from the organization, third parties,
experts or the general public.
Degree of Risk of Misstatement
The internal auditor provides reasonable assurance
on the operations of the organization. If there is
high risk of misstatement in the records, the
auditor is required to increase the size of audit
sample to be considered.
Auditor Skills and Independence
Internal auditors as individuals have more skills in
some areas as compared to other areas. Likewise
43
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
Independent variables

Materiality of the audit issue

Type of Information available

Source of information

Degree of risk of misstatement

Auditor (Skills & Independence)
Dependent variable
Sample size for Internal
Audit Evidence collection
Fig. 1: The independent variable causes or explains changes in the dependent variable
they enjoy audit independence in some situations
as compared to some others. The researcher
therefore expected that when the skills of an
auditor in an area are high, less sample will be
selected and vice versa. Further if the auditor
enjoys high audit independence in a situation, the
sample size required might be less.
Literature Review
Theoretical Framework
Evidence Theory is a branch of the mathematics of
uncertain reasoning that entails profound
epistemological differences with respect to
Probability Theory. In fact, its paradigmatic
situation is the judge who must evaluate
testimonies, rather than the gambler who must
evaluates odds. Unlike a gambler, who faces a
definite set of possibilities, a judge may be forced to
change her evaluation because of novel possibilities
suggested by unexpected testimonies. In this sense,
Evidence Theory provides a formalization of some
among Shackles intuitions. While the details of the
connections between Shackle’s theory and Evidence
Theory have been explored elsewhere, this article is
devoted to a detailed explanation of the working of
Evidence Theory. An example is discussed in detail
and several domains of application are briefly
sketched [5].Toba [6] explained a general theory of
evidence as the conceptual foundation of auditing
theory. The theory states that “auditing is a
systematic process of objectively obtaining and
evaluating evidence regarding assertions and
established criteria and communicating the results
to interested users”. This statement emphasizes on
objectively collecting audit evidence as a foundation
of good auditing practice. The approach was first
advanced by Toba focuses on the relationship
between concepts of evidence and the propositions
to be proved in a financial statement audit. The
process of splitting up the ultimate proposition
(“fair presentation”) into a number of elementary
propositions that must be supported by evidence is
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
described. Gronewold [7] advances a theory on
probative value of audit evidence where he asserts
that auditor uses audit evidence to draw
conclusions about the relevant reality, which
cannot be observed anymore. He argued that how
well a correct recognition of the relevant reality can
be achieved, depends on the probative value of the
evidence, which in turn depends on the accuracy of
the evidence creation and transmission process.
This theory considered source of audit evidence,
evidence creation and transmission process,
characteristics of evidence and the auditor as the
variables affecting the probative value of audit
evidence.
Materiality of the Audit Issue
When conducting audit, the auditor should consider
materiality of the audit issues and its relationship
with the audit risk. If the audit risk is high then
more audit evidence is required. An audit issue is
considered material if its misstatement could
influence the economic decision of the users.
Materiality also depends on the size and nature of
the item judged in the particular circumstance.
Materiality also has a quantitative thresh hold or a
cutoff point. Assessment of what is material is a
matter of professional judgment [8]. Bernardi and
Pincus [9] argued that while auditor materiality
judgments differ, these differences were not
statistically significantly related to either fraud
risk judgments or the amount of evidence the
auditors chose to examine before rendering their
judgments. Chong, [10] informs that there is great
concern about the applicability of materiality in the
auditing profession. Various materiality guidelines
have been recommended by both academic
researchers and accounting bodies, but the
Auditing Practices Board in the UK has yet to
recommend a guideline of its own. Materiality is a
consideration in many audit decisions.
Type of Information Available
44
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
Moeller [11] argued that an internal auditor will
encounter multiple types of evidence that can be
useful in developing audit conclusions. He also
evidence than the informal audit evidence. Audit
sampling is a key approach for auditors when faced
with large volume of information to select from [12].
There are various types of information that the
auditor may require for his/ her audit evidence.
Source of Information
Moeller [11] explained that audit evidence obtained
through observation and confirmations by the
auditor is more reliable that the evidence collected
through inquiry. He also argued that evidence from
corroborative materials is stronger than evidence
from underlying statistics. Evidence created by the
actual system is stronger than the evidence derived
from a support system. Auditor’s personal work is
more reliable than the supplied or second hand
information. Gupta, [14] explains that the
reliability of audit evidence largely depends on its
source. He further explains that external evidence
is more reliable than internal evidence, internal
evidence is more reliable when related internal
control is satisfactory, written information is more
reliable than the oral information and that
information gathered by the auditor himself is more
reliable than information obtained from third
parties.
Degree of Risk of Misstatement
When the risk of material misstatement is high,
more persuasive evidence is required together with
individual auditor’s judgment [15]. Bragg [16]
asserts that the greater the risk of material
misstatement, the greater the extent of substantive
procedures required to collect audit evidence. He
also adds that the auditors judgment as to what
constitutes sufficient audit evidence is influenced
by significance of the potential misstatements in
the relevant assertion and likelihood of its having
material effect. The degree of risk of misstatement
may be affected by the nature of item, adequacy of
internal controls, nature and size of business
carried on by entity, situations which may exert an
unusual influence on managers and financial
position of the entity [14].
Auditor Skills and Independence
Goodwin and Yeo [17] noted that there were two
factors
affecting
audit
independence
and
objectivity.
The first factor affecting the
organizational independence of the internal audit
function was its relationship with the audit
committee. The second was the use of the function
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
argued that written materials provide stronger
audit evidence than oral information. Formal and
documented information gives stronger audit
This information includes, oral and written
materials, authoritative documents, formal and
informal information, etc [13]. ISA 500 indicates
that reliability of audit evidence depends on its
sources and perhaps its nature.
as a management training ground. It is argued that
this practice might affect individual objectivity
because internal auditors may be reluctant to
withstand pressure from an auditee who could be
their future supervisor. A survey of chief internal
auditors in Singapore was undertaken to establish
current practice in these areas and to identify
relationships between these variables. A strong
relationship between the audit committee and the
internal audit function was found, with the level of
interaction being greater when the audit committee
was comprised solely of independent directors. The
use of the internal audit function as a management
training ground was also found to be quite
widespread in Singapore. The wide range of skills is
necessary to fulfill management′s expectations of
the internal audit function and there exists
disparity between individual internal audit
managers on a number of issues, including skills
[18]. The level of skills possessed by an internal
auditor may determine the amount of audit
evidence that he or she might require to form an
appropriate audit conclusion.
Research Gap
The literature reviewed indicated that quite a lot
have been documented on audit evidence issues.
However, not much work has been done on sample
size determination for the purpose of audit evidence
collection. This study will not only provide a
perspective on the factors that affect sample size for
internal audit evidence collection but will provide
further empirical information on factors affecting
audit sample determination.
Research Design and Methodology
Research Design
Research design is a program that guides the
investigator
in
collecting,
analyzing
and
interpreting data. It assists the researcher to
determine the objectives of research, subjects of
research, the sample size, the data to be collected,
the procedures of collecting and recording that
data, the procedures for analyzing that data and
how the data will be interpreted and presented
[19].
Population and Sample
45
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
The research population is public sector auditors
working in Kenya. There are more than one
thousand public sector internal auditors in Kenya.
Since the research design employed is a survey, the
researcher circulated 35 questionnaires to his
friends through their e-mails. The researcher
employed convenience sampling technique in this
study.
Research Variables
In this research, Materiality of audit issue, type of
information available, source of information, degree
of risk of misstatement and auditor skills and
independence are considered as independent
variables, and sample size for internal audit
evidence collection as the dependant variable.
Data Collection
The data was collected from internal auditors
working in the public sector in Kenya. The
questions regarding the sample size were in form of
6 point likert scale measured as follows: None (0),
Very small (1), Small (2), Medium (3), Large (4) and
Very Large (5). Data was collected on all the
dependent and independent variables with an aim
of testing the five hypotheses indicated in section
1.3 of this research. The reliability of the
questionnaire was measured using the cronbach
alpha which was computed as follows:
α = 6/(6-1)*(1 – 5.327/14.883) = 77.05%
According to Kline [20] a rule of thumb in using
Cronbach alpha indicates that a coefficient of
between 70% and 80% is acceptable. The researcher
therefore concluded that the data collected using
the questionnaire was statistically suitable for
analysis on the basis of resulting cronbach alpha
coefficient.
Research Model
The research had one dependent variable which
was the sample size for audit evidence collection
and five independent variables (Materiality, type of
information, source of information, degree of risk of
misstatement and auditor’s skills & independence)
as derived from the five hypotheses. This research
adopted a simple regression model based on the
first independent variable i.e. materiality levels due
to the problem of multicollinearity among the
independent variables.
The research model was specified as follows:
S = a + b 1 *M + e
Where: S is the sample size for audit collection
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
M is the materiality level of the audit issue
e is the stochastic error term
a and b 1 are regression coefficients
Data Presentation and Analysis
The research targeted a sample of 35 public
internal auditors in Kenya. 32 public internal
auditors contributed to the research by filling in the
questionnaires. This represented a response rate of
91.4%. Therefore sample size for this study for the
purpose of analysis was 32 public internal auditors.
The data was analyzed in two ways, first using
simple linear regression between sample size for
audit evidence collection and materiality levels.
Secondly the data was analyzed using correlation
analysis for the purpose of testing hypotheses.
Regression Analysis
The data collected was expanded for high
materiality,
medium
materiality
and
low
materiality. This means that sample size, n for the
purpose of regression was 96 i.e. 32 multiplied by 3.
The researcher regressed materiality levels on
sample size and the following were the results
Table1: Regression statistics
Multiple R
R Square
Adjusted
R
Square
Standard Error
Observations
0.896
0.803
0.801
0.366
95
The coefficient of determination (R Square) of 0.803
showed that the predictability strength of the
model is very high.
The regression results
therefore indicated that materiality level was a
good determinant of the sample size to be
considered for the purposes of audit evidence
collection. The ANOVA table further described that
the strength of the regression model specified was
high. This was because F values were very high
and the p value was almost zero. Since the
significance level for analysis used in this research
was 0.05 i.e. 95% confidence level, the p value of
zero was within the region of high predictability of
the model specified.
The model specified was:
S = a + b 1 *M + e
From the table above a, which is the y intercept
was 1.64 and b 1 was 0.897
Therefore S = 1.64 + 0.897M + e
46
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
When the level of materiality is low (M=1) the
sample size will be small (2) or medium (3) as
shown below:
S = 1.64 + 0.897M
S = 1.64 + 0.897(1)
S = 2.537 (i.e. between 2 and 3)
When the level of materiality is Medium (M=2) the
sample size will be medium (3) or large (4) as
shown below:
S = 1.64 + 0.897M
S = 1.64 + 0.897(2)
S = 3.434 (i.e. between 3 and 4)
When the level of materiality is High (M=3) the
sample size will be Large (3) or Very Large (4) as
shown below:
Table 2: The ANOVA table for the regression results is as per shown below
Regression
Residual
Total
Table 3: ANOVA
Y Intercept
b1
df
SS
MS
50.690
0.134
378.855
Coefficients
Standard error
t Stat
P-value
1
93
94
1.640
0.897
50.690
12.443
63.133
0.100
0.046
S = 1.64 + 0.897M
S = 1.64 + 0.897(3)
S = 4.331 (i.e. between 4 and 5)
Hypothesis Testing
The researcher used correlation analysis to test
hypothesis. Since the sample size used in analysis
was 96, normal probability distribution statistic
was used in the analysis. For all the five
hypotheses the decision criteria was as follows.
16.407
19.464
F
10-29
3.34 X
1.46 X 10-34
Significance F
1.46 X 10-34
Lower 95%
1.442
0.806
Upper 95%
1.839
0.989
materiality levels of an audit issue significantly
affect the size of the sample to be selected for audit
evidence collection. The level of materiality was
measured using the level of funding, expenditure,
contribution of the audit issue to organizations
operations and public sensitivity of the issue under
audit. These issues according to this research
significantly determine or affect the sample size
selection for the purpose of internal audit evidence
collection.
Hypothesis Two
Fig.2: Hypothesis testing
The null hypothesis (H 0 ) was rejected for observed
z values which were greater than |1.96|.
Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis stated that materiality of the
audit issue has no effect on the sample size for
internal audit evidence collection (i.e. H 0 : b 1 =0).
The regression results presented in section 5.1
above indicated that materiality level had high
influence on the sample size for internal audit
evidence collection as shown by the F static and the
p value. The observed z for materiality (20.61) was
greater than the critical z (1.96), the null
hypothesis (H 0 ) was rejected and alternative
hypothesis (H 1 ) accepted. The researcher therefore
concluded that
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
The second hypothesis stated that there was no
relationship between type of information available
and the sample size for internal audit evidence
collection (i.e. H 0 : γ s, it = 0). Since the observed z for
type of information (20.96) was greater than the
critical z of 1.96, the researcher rejected the null
hypothesis (H 0 ) and accepted the alternative
hypothesis (H 1 ). The researcher therefore
concluded that there was a statistically significant
relationship between the type of information
available and the sample size for internal audit
evidence collection. Most of the respondents
indicated that oral and informal types of
information required smaller sample sizes than the
formal and written types of information. This could
be explained by an assumption that the latter
group is more reliable than the former group for the
purposes of making audit conclusions based on the
evidence.
Hypothesis Three
This hypothesis stated that there was no
relationship between source of information
(evidence) and the sample size for internal audit
evidence collection (i.e. H 0 : γ s, is = 0). The observed z
47
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
for source of information (17.91) was greater than
the critical z (1.96), hence the null hypothesis (H 0 )
was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H 1 )
accepted. The researcher therefore concluded that
there was a statistically significant relationship
between the source of information and the sample
size for internal audit evidence collection.
The respondents indicated that information from
the public, non experts and third parties required
lesser sample size than information from
organization and from experts. This can also be
attributed to reliability of the information source.
Table 4: The summary table for the observed z values in relation to the five hypotheses was as follows
Critical z
Decision
Correlation
Observed z
Sample size for audit evidence
1
1.96
Reject H 0
Materiality
0.8954303
20.61
1.96
Reject H 0
Type of information
0.8986844
20.96
1.96
Reject H 0
Source of information
0.8641963
17.91
1.96
Reject H 0
Risk of misstatement
0.8954303
20.61
1.96
Reject H 0
Auditor skills and independence
-0.86395
17.90
Hypothesis Four
The fourth hypothesis stated that there was no
relationship between degree of risk of misstatement
and the sample size for internal audit evidence
collection (i.e. H 0 : γ s,rs = 0). Since the observed z for
degree of risk of misstatement (20.61) was greater
than the critical z of 1.96, the researcher rejected
the null hypothesis (H 0 ) and accepted the
alternative hypothesis (H 1 ). The researcher
therefore concluded that there was a statistically
significant relationship between the degree of risk
of misstatement and the sample size for internal
audit evidence collection. Large number of
respondents indicated that smaller sample sizes
would be selected when the degree of risk of
misstatement was low and large sample sizes when
the risk is high.
Hypothesis Five
This hypothesis stated that there was no
relationship between auditor skills & auditor
independence and the sample size for internal audit
evidence collection (i.e. H 0 : γ s, sk = 0). The observed z
for auditor skills and auditor independence (17.90)
was greater than the critical z (1.96), hence the null
hypothesis (H 0 ) was rejected and alternative
hypothesis (H 1 ) accepted. The researcher therefore
concluded that there was a statistically significant
relationship between the auditor skills & auditor
independence and the sample size for internal audit
evidence collection. The respondents indicated that
they required smaller sample sizes for audit
evidence collection when they possessed higher
skills in an area of audit and when the auditor
independence is high, likewise larger sample sizes
were required where the skills level and auditors
independence was low[21-24].
Summary, Discussion and Conclusion
Summary
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
The study found out that materiality of audit issue
which is measured by: level of funding and
expenditure; contribution of audit issue to
organizations operations; and public sensitivity of
the audit issue affect the sample size determination
for the purposes of internal audit evidence
collection. The study further observed that there
was a statistically significant relationship between
the sample size for audit evidence collection and
materiality levels, type of information available,
source of information, degree of risk of
misstatement
and
auditor’s
skills
and
independence.
Discussion
The researchers observed that the level of funding,
expenditure level of the audit issue, contribution of
the audit issue to organizations operations and
public sensitivity of the audit issue were the
measure that determine materiality level.
Materiality of the audit issue affects the sample
size for audit purposes of the internal auditors in
the public sector in Kenya. The study found out
that there is a statistically significant relationship
between the type of information (such as oral,
written, formal and informal information) and the
sample size for internal audit evidence collection in
public sector in Kenya. The study further
established that the source of information which
includes third parties, general public, experts, and
organization, correlates strongly with the sample
size for audit purposes of the internal auditors in
the public sector in Kenya. The study established
that the degree of risk of misstatement correlates
with the sample size for audit purposes of the
internal auditors in the public sector in Kenya. It
also established that there was a strong negative
relationship
between
auditor
skills
and
independence with the sample size for audit
purposes of the internal auditors in the public
sector in Kenya. The discussion concludes that
materiality, type of information, source of
48
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
information, degree of risk of misstatement and
auditor’s skills and independence are factors that
influence the sample size for audit purposes of the
internal auditors in the public sector in Kenya.
Conclusion
The study established that materiality of audit
issue, type of information available, source of
information, degree of risk of misstatement and
auditor skills and independence are some of the
factors influencing the sample size determination
for the purposes of internal audit evidence
collection in public sector in Kenya. In conclusion,
materiality levels may be a good predictor of the
sample size to be selected by internal auditors in
public sector in Kenya. Areas for further research
could include areas such as financial implications of
audit evidence, co-operation between the auditor
and client and political influence as factors that
influence audit’s sample size.
References
1. Eilifsen A, Messier WF, Glover SM, Prawitt DF
(2006)
Auditing
and
Assurance
Services.
International Edition. Glasgow: McGraw Hill
Education.
2. The Institute of Internal Auditors (2010) The
Professional Practices Framework. Florida, USA:
Altamonte Springs.
3. Beasley MS Carcello, Joseph V, Hermanson DR
(2001) Top ten audit deficiencies, lessons learned
from SEC fraud related cases. J. Accountancy 191:636.
4. Maxwell Joseph A (2005) Qualitative research design:
an interactive approach. California, USA: Sage
Publications inc.
5. Fioretti G (2009) Evidence Theory as a Procedure for
Handling Novel Events. Metroeconomica 60: 283-301.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-999X.2008.00331.x.
6. Toba Yoshihide (1975) A General Theory of Evidence
as the Conceptual Foundation in Auditing Theory.
The Accounting Review. 50(1):7-24
7. Gronewold Ulfert (2006) Probative value of audit
evidence: A framework and synthesis. J. Forensic
Accounting VII:345-94
V, Ainapure M (2009)Auditing and
Assurance 2nd Ed. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private
8. Ainapure
Ltd, 252
9. Bernardi RA, Pincus, KV (1996) The relationship
between materiality thresholds and judgments of
fraud risk. Managerial Finance, 22(9:1-15.
10. Chong HGin (1992) Auditors
Managerial Auditing Journal 7:5.
and
materiality.
11. Moeller Robert R (2009) Brink’s Modern Internal
Auditing: A Common Body of Knowledge. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
13. Basu SK (2009) Auditing. New Delhi: Dorling
Kindersly pvt. Ltd.
14. Gupta Kamal (2005) Contemporary Auditing, 6th Ed.
New Delhi: Tata-McGraw Hill Publishing Co. ltd.
15. Rittenberg Larry E, Johnstone K, Gramling Audrey
A, Schweiger Bradley (2009) Auditing: a business risk
approach. Mason, OH: South Western Cengage
Learning.
16. Bragg SM (2011) Wiley’s practitioners guide to GAAS
2012. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
17. Goodwin J, Yeo TW (2001) Two factors affecting
internal audit independence and objectivity: Evidence
from Singapore. Int. J. Auditing. 5(2):103-25
18. Cooper BJ, Leung Philomena, Mathews Clive (1994)
Internal audit: An Australian profile. Managerial
Auditing Journal 9(3):13-9.
19. Nachmias David (1996) Research Methods in the
social sciences, 5th Edition. London, UK: St Martins
Press Inc.
20. Kline P (1999) The handbook of psychological testing
(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
21. Gravetter Forzano (2009) Research Methods for
Behavioral Sciences, 3rd Ed. USA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning, p 352.
22. Holloway Immy (1997) Basic concepts for Qualitative
Research. Carton Victoria, Australia: Blackwell
science ltd, p 99.
23. Kerlinger FN (1970) Foundations of Behavioral
Research. New York, USA: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, p 8.
24. Leedy RD (1989) Practical Research: Planning and
Design, 4th Edition. London, UK: Collier Macmillan, p
5.
12. Moeller Robert R (2010) IT Audit, Control and
Security. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kamau, Charles Guandaru | Mar.-April. 2012 | Vol.1 | Issue 2|42-49
49

We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.