International Journal of Auditing

Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

Factors Associated with the Use

of and Compliance with the IIA
Standards: A Study of
Anglo-culture CAEs
Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi
Bentley University

Chief audit executives (CAEs) are required to use and comply

with The International Standards for the Professional Practice
of Internal Auditing (Standards). However, this study finds
that 13.5 percent of CAEs in Anglo-culture countries do not
use the Standards. Furthermore, of those who use the
Standards a significant number fail to comply with specific
standards. Multivariate tests of data from CAEs in this
study show that ‘Length of IIA membership’ and ‘Internal
auditing certification’ are positively associated with use. Other
significant variables are ‘Superseded by local/government
regulations or standards,’ ‘Not perceived as value added by
management/board’ and ‘Compliance not expected in the
country’ that are inversely related to use. The length of training
is also positively associated with compliance, while other
significant variables are internal audit certification, ‘Standards
are too costly,’ ‘Not perceived as value added by management/
board’ and ‘Inadequate internal audit staff’ that are negatively
associated with compliance. The paper ends with a discussion
of the implications of these results for practice and research.
Key words: Internal auditing standards, reasons for use or
compliance, certification, training

SUMMARY practice of internal auditing by individuals and

The International Standards for the Professional
Practice of Internal Auditing (hereafter, Standards;
IIA, 2008) promulgated by the Institute of Internal
Auditors (IIA) are the authoritative source for the
Correspondence to: Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi, Bentley
University, Waltham, MA 02154-4705, USA. Email: mabdolmo@
bentley.edu
organizations worldwide. As internal audit policy
makers, chief audit executives (CAEs) are required
to use the Standards in their internal audit activities
and to comply with Standards. Significant lack of
use or compliance would be a violation of IIA
requirements. In this study, responses from 1,029
CAEs located in the Anglo-culture countries of
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK/Ireland,
and the United States are analyzed to investigate a

ISSN 1090-6738
© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Rd, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and Main St., Malden, MA 01248, USA.
28
number of variables that are hypothesized to be
associated with the use of and compliance with
Standards.
The results show that overall 13.5 percent of
CAEs in Anglo-culture countries fail to use
Standards, and of those who use the Standards, a
significant minority fail to comply with specific
standards. In particular, 14.8 percent of CAEs
indicate that they do not comply with Attribute
Standard #1300 that addresses Quality Assurance &
Improvement. Univariate and multivariate tests
of a number of hypothesized explanatory and
control variables were used to investigate the
factors that are theoretically associated with use of
and compliance with Standards. As hypothesized,
‘Length of IIA membership’ and ‘Internal auditing
certification’ are found to be positively related to
use. Other significant variables were ‘Superseded
by local/government regulations or standards,’
‘Not perceived as value added by management/
board,’ and ‘Compliance not expected in the
country’ that are inversely associated with use. The
length of training is also positively associated
with compliance, while other significant variables
are internal audit certification, ‘Standards are too
costly,’ ‘Not perceived as value added by
management/board,’ and ‘Inadequate internal
audit staff’ that are negatively associated with
compliance. While some of these variables (e.g.,
‘Superseded by local/government regulations’) are
out of the control of the IIA, other variables (e.g.,
certification, training) can be influenced through
regulation. For example, IIA membership can be
improved while encouraging or requiring internal
auditing certification for membership, as well as
increased training for membership continuance.
INTRODUCTION
Chief audit executives (CAEs) are the heads of
internal audit activities and are charged with the
responsibility of setting policy for the internal audit
activities (IAA) in their respective organizations.
An important policy issue is whether or not CAEs
completely use The International Standards for the
Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards)
as the comprehensive guide for their IAA. For the
CAEs who use the Standards, an issue of interest is
whether they also comply with specific Standards.
The overall aim of this study is to use responses
from a large sample of 1,029 CAEs from
Anglo-culture countries located in Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, the UK/Ireland, and the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
M. J. Abdolmohammadi
United States to investigate the factors that are
associated with the use of and compliance with
Standards.
This study is important because very little work
has been reported in the literature to investigate the
level of use of Standards and compliance with them.
Burnaby et al. (2008) provide data on the usage of
Standards in the United States and a select group of
countries in Europe (Belgium, Italy, Netherlands,
and the UK/Ireland). Their descriptive study
identifies significant minorities of internal auditors
who do not use or comply with Standards. Studies
that investigate adherence to accounting standards
also indicate that once standards are adopted,
they are not usually completely adhered to. For
example, using a sample of non-US firms that
adopted US Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP), Bradshaw and Miller (2008)
find that most firms that adopt US GAAP adjust
their accounting methods to those required by US
GAAP but they do not fully converge.
As a descriptive paper, Burnaby et al. (2008) does
not use inferential statistics to identify important
variables that are significantly associated with use
of and/or compliance with Standards. An objective
of the current study is to use inferential
multivariate statistics to investigate the degree
of significance of variables that are theoretically
associated with use of or compliance with
Standards by CAEs in Anglo-culture countries.
Specifically, multivariate logistic regression is used
to do so, and to identify whether the regression
model indicates missing variables.
The focus of the current paper is on an
Anglo-culture country that has never been a
member of the Commonwealth countries (i.e., the
United States) and those that have been members
of the old Commonwealth (Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, the UK/Ireland).1 The reason for this
choice is to mitigate the impact of diverse cultures
on the results. Hofstede (1983) classified 50
countries into various cultural groups based on a
number of cultural variables (e.g., uncertainty
avoidance). More recently, House et al. (2004)
extended Hofstede’s (1983) work and classified
62 societies into various cultural groups. The
importance of this literature to the current study
is that it suggests that culture influences the way
professions practice. While Standards provide rules
to unify practice of internal auditing worldwide,
the cultural classification literature suggests that
cultural differences may cause significant
differences in practice. For example, Gray (1988)
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)
Factors Associated with the Use of and Compliance with the IIA Standards: A Study of Anglo-culture CAEs
found Hofstede’s (1983) country classification to be
highly relevant to the development of accounting
in various countries. Thus, given that the IIA has
affiliates in over 100 countries (IIA, 2008), it will
not be surprising to find differences in practice,
such as the level of use of and compliance with
Standards. However, limiting the sample of CAEs
to Anglo-culture countries should mitigate the
effects of culture on the use of and compliance with
Standards and make the results more focused and
reliable. As reported later, the results of the current
study indeed show no significant difference
between the Anglo-culture CAE responses from
non-Commonwealth and old-Commonwealth
countries.
Another reason to focus the study on
Anglo-culture countries is that strong regulatory
requirements in these countries support the
establishment of an internal audit function in
various organizations, especially in public
companies. For example, the New York Stock
Exchange requires that listed companies have an
internal audit function. Similarly, company acts in
Australia and the UK also encourage the existence
of internal audit functions for public companies. In
the sample of CAEs used in this study, a simple
majority (56.4 percent) indicated that laws in their
countries currently require internal audit functions
for their organizations.
The current paper uses data from a worldwide
study of Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK)
in internal auditing that the IIA undertook in
2006 (CBOK, 2006). Logit regression is used to find
the relations between use and compliance as
dependent variables and a number of explanatory
variables (e.g., cost of use/compliance, inadequate
audit staff) and control variables (e.g., academic
degree – graduate vs. undergraduate, and academic
major – accounting/auditing/internal auditing
vs. others) as independent variables. The results
indicate that overall 13.5 percent of IIA member
CAEs in Anglo-culture countries do not use the
Standards and of those that do, a significant
minority does not comply with Standards. Of
particular importance is that 14.8 percent of
CAEs indicate that they do not comply with
Attribute Standard #1300 (Quality Assurance &
Improvement).
The study results indicate that ‘Length of IIA
membership’ and ‘Internal auditing certification’
are positively related to use, while other significant
variables, e.g. ‘Superseded by local/government
regulations or standards,’ ‘Not perceived as value
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
29
added by management/board,’ and ‘Compliance
not expected in the country,’ are inversely related
to use. The length of training is also positively
associated with compliance, while other significant
variables are internal audit certification, ‘Standards
are too costly,’ ‘Not perceived as value added by
management/board,’ and ‘Inadequate internal
audit staff’ which are negatively associated with
compliance. Implications of these results for
practice and research are discussed in the final
section.
The remainder of this paper is organized as
follows. The next section provides a brief review
of the literature leading to the study’s research
hypotheses. This is followed by sections on the
study’s research method and results. The final
section provides a conclusion and implications
arising from the study.
LITERATURE BACKGROUND AND
HYPOTHESES
The International Standards for the Professional
Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards) are
promulgated by the Institute of Internal Auditors
(the IIA). The IIA (2008) asserts that these standards
are the authoritative source for the practice of
internal auditing by individuals and organizations
worldwide. The IIA (2008) also indicates that
Standards ‘are the result of careful study,
consultation, and deliberation about the basic
principles for providing internal audit services.’
Finally, according to the IIA’s Code of Ethics,
Standards must be complied with by all who
perform internal audits. Thus, one would expect
that CAEs who are also members of the IIA would
fully use, and fully comply with the Standards.
Failure to do so would indicate a challenge to the
strength of the Standards as a unified set of rules
for the practice of internal auditing worldwide. In
particular, one would expect a high level of use
and compliance by CAEs practicing in the United
States (home of the IIA) and other Anglo-culture
countries that have strong regulatory environments
for having internal audit functions. Thus, when
there are deviations from use and compliance,
a major issue of research is to investigate the
variables that contribute to use and compliance
with Standards and thus to reduce deviations from
use and compliance. These variables are identified
and discussed as explanatory and control variables
in the next few sections, leading to the research
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)
30 M. J. Abdolmohammadi

hypotheses and the resulting regression model to compliance with Standards impose a heavy cost on
test the hypotheses. organizations. This cost must be compared with the
benefits derived to make a commitment to use of
and comply with Standards. Some organizations
Explanatory variables
may simply view Standards as too costly to use or
CAE’s personal variables comply with.
A related issue is that smaller companies may
CAEs have certain demographic variables that are
have small internal audit functions so as to avoid
classified in this study as personal variables. For
heavy cost of a larger internal audit function.
example, similar to other professional associations,
As such these companies may have difficulty
the IIA promotes membership, certification, and
using or complying with Standards. This difficulty
continuing professional education as important
is generic in nature and applies to compliance with
factors for the practice of internal auditing. CAEs
various externally imposed standards, not just
that possess these three characteristics should
internal auditing standards. Some standard-setting
be associated with enhanced practice of internal
organizations are sensitive to this issue and try
auditing worldwide. Specifically, since Standards
to devise less stringent requirements for smaller
are expected to be uniformly used and complied
organizations to follow. For example, Gramling
with, one would expect that length of membership
and Hermanson (2008: 40) state that ‘subsequent
in the IIA, certification, and continuing
to the issuance of Auditing Standard No. 5, the
professional education (CPE) would improve usage
PCAOB worked with auditing practitioners and
of and compliance with the Standards. While this
financial executives to develop tailored
relationship has been generally assumed, little
implementation guidance for auditing internal
empirical work has been conducted to test it.
control in smaller public companies. The PCAOB
Standards require that certified internal auditors
and the SEC are sensitive to the unique nature
(CIAs) must complete 80 hours of training every 24
of smaller public companies and their internal
months. CBOK (2006) collected data on training
controls. They encourage internal auditors to be
hours every 36 months and every 12 months. The
attuned to these differences, whether they are
former is more meaningful for analysis in the
working in public or private companies or other
current paper because it indicates longer-term
organizations’ [emphasis added]. Thus, the data from
commitment to training than training over just a
the current study might be helpful to the IIA in its
12-month period.
policies regarding the use of and compliance with
The discussion above suggests that the three
Standards by smaller organizations.
personal variables of IIA membership, internal
For organizations of any size, management
auditing certification, and long-term commitment
and/or the board may not perceive the use of or
to CPE are positively related to use of and
compliance with the Standards as adding value
compliance with Standards. This expectation leads
to the organization, and thus may not support
to the following research hypotheses:
their use or compliance. Clemmons (2007) reports
H1a: Length of IIA membership is positively that companies view quality standards as
related to use of and compliance with Standards. providing ‘great value for not only the internal
audit function, but also the audit committee
H1b: Internal auditing certification is positively
and the overall organization.’ However, if an
related to use of and compliance with Standards.
organization’s management and/or board does not
H1c: Hours of training over 36-month period is perceive Standards to add value, then it may not
positively related to use of and compliance with support the use of and compliance with Standards.
Standards. The arguments listed above lead to the following
research hypotheses:
Organizational variables H2a: ‘Standards are too costly’ is inversely
associated with use of and compliance with
Variables that define certain characteristics of
Standards.
organizations are classified in this study as
organizational variables. One of these variables is H2b: ‘Inadequate internal audit staff’ is inversely
organizations’ commitment to cover the cost of the associated with use of and compliance with
internal audit function. This is because use of and Standards.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

Factors Associated with the Use of and Compliance with the IIA Standards: A Study of Anglo-culture CAEs
H2c: ‘Not perceived as value added by
management/board’ is inversely associated with
use of and compliance with Standards.
Finally, organizations operate under diverse
legal systems. This means that local governments
may impose regulations that may supersede the
use of or compliance with the Standards. Thus,
‘Superseded by local/government regulations or
standards’ may be an explanatory variable that can
be hypothesized as follows:
H2d: ‘Superseded by local/government
regulations or standards’ is inversely associated
with use of and compliance with Standards.
Control variables
Other personal and/or organizational variables
may influence the use of and/or compliance with
Standards. Personal demographic variables such
as academic degree (graduate vs. undergraduate),
major (accounting/auditing/internal auditing vs.
other majors) as well as years of experience as
a CAE could be added as control variables. Age
can also be added as a control variable, but as
shown later, age is highly correlated with years of
experience as CAE. Thus, it is not included in the
regression model specified later. However, it was
used in the model for additional analysis as a
substitute for years of experience as CAE and
rendered essentially the same results.
Organizational control variables include
‘Standards are too time consuming.’ However, as
explained later, this variable is highly correlated
with ‘Standards are too costly,’ which is included in
the regression model as an explanatory variable.
Thus ‘Standards are too time consuming’ is not
included in the regression model although it is
used in additional analysis, where it renders
essentially the same result as a substitute for
‘Standards are too costly.’ Another organizational
control variable is that it may be operating in an
industry for which the Standards are not viewed
as appropriate or industry-specific. Likewise,
compliance may not be expected in a CAE’s home
country, and thus there may not be an incentive
or expectation to use or comply with Standards.
Thus, these two variables are included as control
variables. Another control variable could be
‘Compliance not supported by management/
board.’ However, as explained later, this variable is
highly correlated with ‘Not perceived as adding
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
31
Table 1: Countries in the sample
Group Country Number of
responses
1. Non-Commonwealth USA 760
2. Old-Commonwealth Australia 72
Canada 116
New Zealand 13
UK & Ireland 68
Total 269
Grand total 1,029
value by management/board’ which is included in
the regression model as an explanatory variable.
Thus, the ‘Compliance not supported by
management/board’ variable is not used in the
regression model although it is used in additional
analysis, where it replaces ‘Not perceived as
adding value by management/board.’ The results
are essentially the same. Also, a catchall variable
called ‘Other’ is added as a control variable for
various reasons that were listed by CAEs. This
variable is included as a control variable and is
found to be significant. Thus, a summary of the
reasons provided by CAEs is provided in the
results section.
Finally, a categorical variable called ‘Group’ is
used for the two groups of countries in the sample
as detailed in Table 1. Since the Anglo-culture
countries are generally under the same regulatory
and legal regimes, they are expected to have similar
responses (cf. Hofstede, 1983; House et al., 2004).
A non-significant result for the Group variable
in multivariate tests provides validation for this
expectation. As listed, Group 1 has responses from
CAEs located in the US (n = 760). While an
Anglo-culture in nature, the US has never been
a member of the Commonwealth countries, thus
it is reported as a non-Commonwealth group in
Table 1. Group 2 has CAE responses from
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and UK/Ireland
(n = 269). These countries are grouped as
old-Commonwealth countries. As Table 1 shows,
the total sample of CAE responses used in this
study is 1,029.
Model specification
The explanatory and control variables identified
above are codified into a logit model with
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)
32
dependent variable (Y) being either use (Model 1)
or compliance (Model 2).
Y = α + β1 MembershipYrs + β 2 IACertification +
β 3TrainingHours + β 4StdsTooCostly +
β 5 InadeqIAStaff + β6 NoValueAdded +
β7 Superseded + β8Degree + β9 Major +
β10CAExperience + β11StdsTooComplex +
β12 InapForSmall + β13StdsInapIndus +
β14CompNotExp + β15Other + β16Group + ε
where:
Y = use (Model 1), compliance
(Model 2): 1/0 for yes/no
MembershipYrs = 1 if 6 years or more, 0 if 5 years
or less
IACertification = 1 if professionally certified as
internal auditor, 0 otherwise
TrainingHours = number of hours of training
over the past 36 months
StdsTooCostly = standards are too costly: 1/0 for
yes/no
InadeqIAStaff = inadequate internal audit staff:
1/0 for yes/no
NoValueAdded = perceived as no value added by
management/board: 1/0 for
yes/no
Superseded = superseded by local/
government regulations or
standards: 1/0 for yes/no
Degree = graduate degree = 1,
undergraduate degree = 0
Major = academic major: Accounting/
Auditing/Internal
Auditing = 1, 0 otherwise
CAExperience = years of experience as CAE
StdsTooComplex = standards are too complex: 1/0
for yes/no
InapForSmall = standards are inappropriate for
small organizations: 1/0 for
yes/no
StdsInapIndus = standards are inappropriate for
industry: 1/0 for yes/no
CompNotExp = compliance not expected in the
country: 1/0 for yes/no
Other = all other reasons: 1/0 for
yes/no
Group = 1 if US, 2 if Australia/Canada/
New Zealand/UK & Ireland
e = error term
Given the binary nature of the response mode for
the dependent variables, this model is tested using
the binary logistic regression.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
M. J. Abdolmohammadi
RESEARCH METHOD
The CBOK database
The source of data for the current study is the
CBOK (2006) database. CBOK (2006) has a long list
of questions on various issues of concern to the
practice of internal auditing (Abdolmohammadi et
al., 2006), and is the most comprehensive database
on the current state of the internal auditing
profession worldwide (Burnaby et al., 2007).
Selected data from this comprehensive database are
adopted for analysis in the current paper.
The CBOK (2006) variables of interest to this
study are listed in Table 2. The first seven variables
pertain to demographic information such as
experience and training of the CAE respondents.
CBOK Question #8 relates to the use of Standards,
while Question 9 was designed to collect data on
compliance with Standards. Finally, answers to
Question 10 provide information on a number of
variables (both explanatory and control variables)
that relate to the nature of organizations for which
CAE respondents served.
DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics on CAE
personal variables by groups of countries.
Depending on the variable, either the c2 test or the
t-test is performed to compare the responses from
the two groups of countries, where significant
statistical results are highlighted. The first variable
in Table 3 presents the length of IIA membership of
CAEs.2 Approximately a third of all CAEs (37.3
percent) were members of the IIA for five years or
less, leaving 62.7 percent as members for six years
or more. The c2 of 0.048 indicates that there is no
significant difference between the responses by
groups of countries at conventional levels. The next
demographic variable, age, indicates that typically
a CAE is 46.28 years of age with a standard
deviation of 8.42 years. The two-sample t-test
indicates no significant difference between the two
groups (T-statistic = 0.059, p = 0.953).
Investigation of academic degrees indicates that
while 62.9 percent of the CAEs possess only an
undergraduate degree, 37.1 percent have earned
graduate degrees. It is noteworthy that a higher
proportion of the non-Commonwealth CAEs
possess graduate degrees than old-Commonwealth
CAEs (39.3 percent vs. 30.9 percent) and the
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)
Factors Associated with the Use of and Compliance with the IIA Standards: A Study of Anglo-culture CAEs 33

Table 2: CBOK questions of interest to this study

Variable
1. How long have you been a member of The IIA?
䊐 1–5 years
䊐 6–10 years
䊐 11 years or more
䊐 I am not a member of The IIA (Skip to question 2.)
2. Your age: ___
3. Your highest level of formal education (not certification) completed:
䊐 Secondary / High School Education
䊐 Bachelors / Diploma in Business
䊐 Bachelors / Diploma in fields other than Business
䊐 Masters / Graduate Degree / Diploma in Business
䊐 Masters / Graduate Diploma in fields other than Business
䊐 Doctoral Degree
䊐 Other
4. Your academic major(s): (Please mark all that apply.)
䊐 Accounting
䊐 Arts or Humanities
䊐 Auditing
䊐 Computer Science
䊐 Economics
䊐 Engineering
䊐 Finance
䊐 General Business / Management
䊐 Information Systems
䊐 Internal Auditing
䊐 Law
䊐 Mathematics / Statistics
䊐 Science or Technical Field
䊐 Other
䊐 No degree
5. Your professional qualification(s): (Please mark all that apply)
䊐 Internal Auditing (such as CIA / MIIA / PIIA)
䊐 Information Systems Auditing (such as CISA / QiCA / CISM)
䊐 Government Auditing / Finance (such as CIPFA / CGAP / CGFM)
䊐 Control Self-Assessment (such as CCSA)
䊐 Public Accounting / Chartered Accountancy (such as CA/CPA/ACCA/ACA)
䊐 Management / General Accounting (such as CMA / CIMA / CGA)
䊐 Accounting – technician level (such as CAT / AAT)
䊐 Fraud Examination (such as CFE)
䊐 Financial Services Auditing (such as CFSA / CIDA / CBA)
䊐 Fellowship (such as FCA / FCCA / FCMA)
䊐 Certified Financial Analyst (such as CFA)
䊐 Other
6. How many total years have you been the Chief Audit Executive / General Auditor / Top Audit
Position / Vice President – Audit / Service Provider equivalent at your current organization and
previous organizations you have worked for?
7. On average, how many hours of formal training have you received over the last 36 month period or
while you have been in the Internal Audit Function if less than three years? Training includes, but is not
limited to seminars, conferences, workshops, and in-house information sessions provided by either your
organization or another organization.
Hours: _________________
8. Does your organization use The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing
in whole or in part? If you are a service provider do you use The IIA’s International Standards
for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing in whole or in part for your audits of your clients?
䊐 Yes
䊐 No

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

34 M. J. Abdolmohammadi

Table 2: Continued
Variable
9. If your Internal Audit Function follows any of The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional
Practice of Internal Auditing, please indicate . . . if you believe your organization complies with the
standards.
Your Organization is in Compliance
AS 1000 Purpose, Authority, and Responsibility 䊐 Yes, full compliance
AS 1100 Independence and Objectivity 䊐 Yes, partial compliance
AS 1200 Proficiency and Due Professional Care 䊐 No, not in compliance
AS 1300 Quality Assurance and Improvement 䊐 I do not know
PS 2000 Managing the Internal Audit Activity
PS 2100 Nature of Work
PS 2200 Engagement Planning
PS 2300 Performing the Engagement
PS 2400 Communicating Results
PS 2500 Monitoring Progress
PS 2600 Resolution of Management’s Acceptance
of Risks
10. What are the reasons for not using The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal
Auditing, in whole or in part? (Please mark all that apply.)
䊐 Standards or Practice Advisories are too complex
䊐 Not appropriate for small organizations
䊐 Too costly to comply
䊐 Too time consuming
䊐 Superseded by local/government regulations or standards
䊐 Not appropriate for my industry
䊐 Compliance not supported by management / board
䊐 Not perceived as adding value by management / board
䊐 Inadequate Internal Audit Function staff
䊐 Compliance not expected in my country
䊐 Other

Table 3: Descriptive statistics – personal variables

Variable Non-Commonwealth Old-Commonwealth Total Statistic (p)
(N = 760)* (N = 269)* (n = 1,029)*
1. IIA membership: 5 years 37.1% 37.8% 37.3% c2 = 0.048 (0.826)
or less/6 years or more 62.9% 62.2% 62.7%
2. Age: mean years 46.29 (8.63) 46.25 (7.85) 46.28 (8.42) T = 0.059 (0.953)
(Std Dev)
3. Degree: Undergraduate 60.7% 69.1% 62.9% c2 = 6.131 (0.013)
Graduate 39.3% 30.9% 37.1%
4. Major: Accounting/ 76.8% 65.1% 73.8% c2 = 14.260 (<0.001)
Auditing/Internal
auditing
Other 23.2% 34.9% 26.2%
5. Certification: CIA or 46.8% 47.6% 47.0% c2 = 0.044 (0.834)
Equivalent
Other 53.2% 52.4% 53.0%
6. CAE Experience mean 6.86 (6.57) 6.91 (5.98) 6.87 (6.42) T = -0.120 (0.904)
years (Std Dev)
7. 36 months Training Mean 124.50 (74.82) 137.06 (166.52) 127.77 (106.62) T = -1.629 (0.104)
hours (Std Dev)
*Due to missing data the actual responses may be below this sample size.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

Factors Associated with the Use of and Compliance with the IIA Standards: A Study of Anglo-culture CAEs
difference is statistically significant (c2 = 6.131,
p = 0.013). There is also a statistically significant
difference (c2 = 14.260, p < 0.001) for the academic
major, where a higher proportion of non-
Commonwealth CAEs (76.8 percent) major in
accounting, auditing or internal auditing than
the old-Commonwealth CAEs (65.1 percent). The
proportion of CAEs certified as Certified Internal
Auditors (CIA) or equivalent indicates that, overall,
only 47.0 percent of CAEs are certified, and there is
no significant difference between the two groups.
The next variable, CAE experience indicates that,
overall, CAEs have 6.87 years of experience with
a standard deviation of 6.42 years in their jobs
as CAEs, and there is no significant difference
by group. These CAEs also indicated their hours
of training over a 36-month period. The overall
mean hours of training is 127.77 and there is no
significant difference by group.
Overall, Table 3 shows a lot of similarities in
the CAE demographic variables between the two
groups of Anglo-culture countries. A noted
exception is that the non-Commonwealth CAEs
have significantly more graduate degrees as well
as more accounting/auditing/internal auditing
degrees than old-Commonwealth CAEs.
Descriptive statistics on dependent variables (use
of and compliance with Standards) are presented
in Table 4, where significant minority data is
highlighted. For example, Variable #8 data indicates
that while a large majority (86.5%) of CAEs use
Standards, a significant minority (13.5 percent)
does not. The c2 of 0.121 indicates no significant
difference between the two groups of countries.
The CAEs who indicated use of the standards
were also asked to indicate the degree of
compliance with specific standards. As
summarized in Table 4, for most specific standards
the proportion of CAEs indicating lack of
compliance is in negligible single digits.
Furthermore, none of the standards indicates
significant difference by group of countries.
However, the Quality Assurance & Improvement
Program standard (AS #1300) is the only one for
which lack of compliance is in the two-digit range
for both groups (15.8 percent and 12.3 percent,
respectively) with no statistically significant
difference between the two groups. Consequently,
the regression models in the next section are
performed first for the use variable (Model 1) and
then for the compliance variable (Model 2) as
related to AS #1300.3 This standard requires the
performance of internal (on a regular basis) and
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
35
external (every five years) quality assessments of
the internal auditing activity.4
Finally, Table 5 presents descriptive data about
organizational variables (numbers 20–30). The
results indicate that the proportion of CAEs
selecting the variables is in the single-digit or
low double-digit ranges. Also, the data in Table 5
show that with the exception of variables 22 and 29,
there is no significant difference by groups of
countries. For Variable #22, a larger proportion
of the non-Commonwealth respondents than
old-Commonwealth respondents (14.3 percent
and 9.1 percent, respectively) cite ‘Too costly to
comply’ to be a major factor for lack of
compliance (c2 = 4.545, p = 0.033). Inversely,
Variable #29 indicates that a smaller proportion
of the non-Commonwealth respondents than
old-Commonwealth respondents (0.3 percent and
3.4 percent, respectively) cite ‘Compliance not
expected in my country’ to be associated with
lack of compliance with Standards (c2 = 17.463,
p < 0.001).
Overall, Table 5 provides descriptive data on
potential reasons for not complying with Standards.
However, it is not clear from the descriptive
statistics in Table 5 which of these variables are
statistically significant in their inverse effects on
use of or compliance with Standards. The
multivariate tests presented in the next section
investigate this issue.
Multivariate analysis
A correlation matrix is presented in Table 6 to
show the strength of the relationship between
independent variables, where significant
double-digit correlation coefficients of 0.30 or
higher are highlighted. One of these significant
correlations is between Age (#2) and CAE
experience (#6) where the Pearson correlation
coefficient is 0.50. Similarly, ‘Not supported by
management/board’ (#25) and ‘Not perceived as
adding value by management/board’ (#26) are
highly correlated (Pearson = 0.49). Also, ‘Standards
are too costly’ (#21) and ‘Standards are too time
consuming’ (#22) have a Pearson correlation
coefficient of 0.45. Since these coefficients approach
the critical level of 0.50, they cause concern for the
possibility of multicollinearity. Consequently while
‘CAE experience,’ ‘Not perceived as value added
by management/board,’ and ‘Standards are too
costly’ are used in Model (1), the three variables
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)
36 M. J. Abdolmohammadi

Table 4: Descriptive statistics – dependent variables

Variable Non-Commonwealth Old-Commonwealth Total Statistic (p)
(N = 760)* (N = 269)* (n = 1,029)*
8 Do you use IIA standards?
Yes 86.3% 87.2% 86.5% c2 = 0.121 (0.728)
No 13.7% 12.8% 13.5%
Do you comply with:
9 AS 1000: Purpose, Authority
and Responsibility
Yes 99.1% 98.1% 98.9% c2 = 1.482 (0.224)
No 0.9% 1.9% 1.1%
10 AS 1100: Independence &
Objectivity
Yes 98.3% 98.6% 98.4% c2 = 0.087 (0.767)
No 1.7% 1.4% 1.6%
11 AS 1200: Proficiency & Due
Care
Yes 99.1% 100.0% 99.4% c2 = 1.855 (0.173)
No 0.9% 0.0% 0.6%
12 AS 1300: Quality Assurance
& Improvement
Yes 84.2% 87.7% 85.2% c2 = 1.520 (0.218)
No 15.8% 12.3% 14.8%
13 PS 2000: Managing the
Internal Audit Activity
Yes 99.0% 99.5% 99.1% c2 = 0.553 (0.457)
No 1.0% 0.5% 0.9%
14 PS 2100: Nature of Work
Yes 98.9% 98.5% 98.8% c2 = 0.217 (0.641)
No 1.1% 1.5% 1.2%
15 PS 2200: Engagement
Planning
Yes 98.4% 98.1% 98.3% c2 = 0.109 (0.741)
No 1.6% 1.9% 1.7%
16 PS 2300: Performing the
Engagement
Yes 99.1% 100.0% 99.4% c2 = 1.851 (0.174)
No 0.9% 0.0% 0.6%
17 PS 2400: Communicating
Results
Yes 98.9% 100.0% 99.2% c2 = 2.203 (0.138)
No 1.1% 0.0% 0.8%
18 PS 2500: Monitoring Progress
Yes 98.4% 98.1% 98.3% c2 = 0.087 (0.768)
No 1.6% 1.9% 1.7%
19 PS 2600: Monitoring Progress
Yes 97.0% 94.8% 96.4% c2 = 2.203 (0.138)
No 3.0% 5.2% 3.6%

that are highly correlated with them are not. None
of the other correlation coefficients in Table 6
approach the critical level of 0.50 to cause concern
for the possibility of multicollinearity.
Given the binary nature of the dependent
variables, logitic regression is the appropriate
technique to analyze the data. This model is tested
for two dependent variables with two-digit
proportion of CAEs indicating Standards as not
used or not complied with. The results are
presented in Table 7. For each variable, its
coefficient (B) is provided as well as the Wald
statistic and its significance, where the statistically
significant results are highlighted. Also presented

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

Factors Associated with the Use of and Compliance with the IIA Standards: A Study of Anglo-culture CAEs 37

Table 5: Descriptive statistics – organizational variables

Variable Non-Commonwealth Old-Commonwealth Total Statistic (p)
(N = 760)* (N = 269)* (n = 1,029)*
20 Standards are too complex 3.6% 2.7% 3.3% c2 = 0.492 (0.483)
21 Not appropriate for small 17.6% 14.4% 16.7% c2 = 1.341 (0.247)
organizations
22 Too costly to comply 14.3% 9.1% 12.9% c2 = 4.545 (0.033)
23 Too time consuming 14.5% 15.2% 14.7% c2 = 0.069 (0.793)
24 Superseded by local/ 8.0% 6.8% 7.% c2 = 0.338 (0.561)
government regulations or
standards
25 Not appropriate for my 3.4% 3.8% 3.5% c2 = 0.079 (0.779)
industry
26 Compliance not supported 11.2% 10.3% 11.0% c2 = 0.191 (0.662)
by management/board
27 Not perceived as adding 14.8% 12.2% 14.1% c2 = 1.118 (0.290)
value by management/
board
28 Inadequate internal audit 15.4% 11.4% 14.3% c2 = 2.467 (0.116)
staff
29 Compliance not expected 0.3% 3.4% 1.1% c2 = 17.463 (<0.001)
in my country
30 Other 13.2% 14.1% 13.4% c2 = 0.135 (0.714)

in Table 7 are the study’s research hypotheses in
Column 1 to pinpoint the results related to each
hypothesis.
The model c2 statistics are presented at the
bottom of Table 7. These statistics indicate
significance for both Model 1 and Model 2 at very
high levels (p < 0.001). The models also return
relatively high classification accuracy rates in the
mid 80s (84.7 percent for Model 1 and 84.9 percent
for Model 2). Finally, the models return Nagelkerke
pseudo R2 of 22.2 percent for Model 1 and 16.3
percent for Model 2. Thus the explanatory and
control variables explain a significant proportion of
variation in the dependent variables, use and
compliance.
The data in Table 7 indicate support for H1b
(‘IA certification’) but only for use (p = 0.026).
Compliance is also significant but in the opposite
direction (p = 0.014). This evidence suggests that
CAEs who do not have internal auditing
certification are less likely to use, but once they use
the Standards, they are more likely to comply with
them. H2c (‘Not perceived as adding value by
management/board’) is supported by the data in
Table 7 for both use (p < 0.001) and compliance
(p = 0.024). This evidence indicates that it is
important that management/board perceive the
use of and compliance with Standards to add value.
Otherwise they are less likely to require the use of
or compliance with Standards.
The remaining five hypotheses are either
supported for use or compliance but not both.
Specifically, H1a (‘IIA membership years’) and H2d
(’Superseded by local/government regulations
or standards’) are significant for use of Standards
(p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). However,
these variables are not significant for compliance
with Standards. This evidence indicates that length
of membership in the IIA is likely to enhance use
of Standards, but not compliance with Standards.
The evidence on the H2d, ‘Superseded by local/
government regulations or standards’ variable is
interesting in the sense that it indicates that while
the variable is inversely associated with use, it is
not significantly associated with compliance once
CAEs use the Standards.
The reverse conclusion can be drawn for H1c
(’Training hours over 36 moths’), H2a (’Standards
are too costly to comply’) and H2b (‘Inadequate
IAA staff’). These variables are significant for
compliance but not for use of Standards.
Specifically, while H1c is not significant for use, it
is significant for compliance with Standards
(p = 0.032). The same results are obtained for H2a
and H2b, where the Wald statistics are not
significant for use, but they are significant for
compliance (p < 0.001 and p = 0.035, respectively).
Thus, these three variables do not significantly
affect the use of standards, but are either positively
(for training hours over 36 months) or inversely

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

 38

Table 6: Correlation matrix between independent variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009

1. IIA Membership 1.00
Years
2. Age 0.34 1.00
3. Degree 0.03 0.09 1.00
4. Major 0.01 -0.05 -0.02 1.00
5. Certification 0.30 0.07 0.09 0.01 1.00
6. CAE Experience 0.37 0.50 0.02 -0.03 0.09 1.00
7. 36 month Training 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.09 1.00
19. Stds. Too complex 0.00 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04 0.03 -0.05 1.00
20. Inapp. for small -0.03 -0.05 -0.07 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.17 1.00
Org.
21. Stds. Too costly -0.04 -0.01 -0.09 -0.02 -0.06 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.30 1.00
22. Stds. Too time 0.03 0.01 -0.07 0.03 -0.01 0.07 0.04 0.26 0.32 0.45 1.00
consuming
23. Superseded by 0.00 0.03 0.03 -0.04 -0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 1.00
local
24. Inappropriate for -0.04 -0.04 0.02 0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.01 0.11 0.21 1.00
Industry
25. Not supported by 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.19 0.12 0.22 0.08 0.11 1.00
Mgt/Board
26. Not perceived 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.15 0.27 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.49 1.00
value added
27. Inadequate -0.11 -0.04 0.01 -0.07 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 0.02 0.20 0.15 0.16 -0.01 0.02 0.22 0.11 1.00
internal audit staff
28. Compliance not 0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.05 0.01 0.04 0.07 -0.02 0.03 0.02 -0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.10 -0.04 1.00
expected
29. Other -0.01 -0.06 -0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.06 -0.01 -0.01 -0.10 -0.02 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 0.01 1.00
M. J. Abdolmohammadi

Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

Factors Associated with the Use of and Compliance with the IIA Standards: A Study of Anglo-culture CAEs 39

Table 7: Logistic regression for use (Model 1) and compliance with IIA Standards (Model 2)
Y = α + β1 MembershipYrs + β 2 IACertification + β 3TrainingHours + β 4StdsTooCostly + β 5 InadeqIAStaff +
β 6 NoValueAdded + β7 Superseded + β 8 Degree + β 9 Major + β10CAExperience + β11StdsTooComplex +
β12 InapForSmall + β13StdsInapIndus + β14CompNotExp + β15Other + β16Group + ε

Variable* Model 1 Model 2

Use of Standards Compliance
with Standards
B Wald Sig. B Wald Sig.
1 (H1a) MembershipYrs +0.796 11.270 0.001 -0.263 0.935 0.333
2 (H1b) IACertification +0.503 4.958 0.026 -0.591 6.083 0.014
3 (H1c) TrainingHours +0.001 1.023 0.312 +0.004 4.596 0.032
4 (H2a) StdsTooCostly +0.085 0.076 0.783 -1.106 13.831 <0.001
5 (H2b) InadeqIAStaff -0.208 0.558 0.455 -0.597 4.436 0.035
6 (H2c) NoValueAdded -1.480 33.799 <0.001 -0.674 5.093 0.024
7 (H2d) Superseded -1.649 31.214 <0.001 -0.222 0.212 0.645
8 Degree -0.017 0.007 0.936 +0.174 0.549 0.459
9 Major +0.111 0.219 0.640 +0.351 2.102 0.147
10 CAExperience -0.025 2.124 0.145 +0.013 0.443 0.506
11 StdsTooComplex -0.088 0.026 0.871 -0.502 0.780 0.377
12 InapForSmall -0.029 0.011 0.917 -0.325 1.327 0.249
13 StdsInapIndus -0.499 1.208 0.272 +0.201 0.079 0.778
14 CompNotExp -0.969 1.675 0.196 +19.681 0.000 0.999
15 Other -1.469 34.744 <0.001 -1.231 18.155 <0.001
16 Group +0.103 0.176 0.674 +0.189 0.528 0.468
17 Constant +1.943 39.753 <0.001 +2.038 32.265 <0.001
f Chi-sq (Sig.) 124.15 (<0.001) 72.58 (<0.001)
Classification accuracy 84.7% 84.9%
Nagelkerke R2 22.2% 16.3%
Y = Use (Model 1), compliance (Model 2): 1/0 for yes/no
MembershipYrs = 1 if 6 years or more, 0 if 5 years or less
IACertification = 1 if professionally certified as internal auditor, 0 otherwise
TrainingHours = Number of hours of training over the past 36 months
StdsTooCostly = Standards are too costly: 1/0 for yes/no
InadeqIAStaff = Inadequate internal audit staff: 1/0 for yes/no
NoValueAdded = Perceived as no value added by Management/board: 1/0 for yes/no
Superseded = Superseded by local/government regulations or standards: 1/0 for yes/no
Degree = Graduate degree = 1, undergraduate degree = 0
Major = Academic major: Accounting/Auditing/Internal Auditing = 1, 0 otherwise
CAExperience = Years of experience as CAE
StdsTooComplex = Standards are too complex: 1/0 for yes/no
InapForSmall = Standards are inappropriate for small organizations: 1/0 for yes/no
StdsInapIndus = Standards are inappropriate for industry: 1/0 for yes/no
CompNotExp = Compliance not expected in the country: 1/0 for yes/no
Other = All other reasons: 1/0 for yes/no
Group = 1 if US, 2 if Australia/Canada/New Zealand/UK&Ireland
e = Error term

(for standards are too costly and inadequate IAA
staff) associated with compliance with Standards.
Turning to control variables, the variable ‘Other’
is highly significant for both use and compliance
(p < 0.001 for both) with Standards. A number of
comments were provided by the CAE participants
who selected the ‘Other’ choice and provided an
explanation for their choice. Their responses were
classified by the author into various categories.5 For
example, approximately 30 CAEs suggested that
they had just started their internal audit functions,
or that their internal audit functions were too small
to use the Standards. Approximately 15 other CAEs
indicated that they were using standards other than

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009 Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)

40
the IIA Standards (e.g., governmental Bluebook,
AICPA) and a smaller number of CAEs (about 10)
indicated that they were planning to implement
the Standards in the future. Other explanations
included statements such as standards are
outdated, not realistic, impractical, or no time to
implement them. An interesting comment by one
CAE was ‘We all become aware of the standards via
[the] study for the CIA exam but we do not extend
ourselves as practicing [sic] in accordance with the
standards. Rather, we do what we think makes
sense; which may or may not be in accordance with
the standards – not sure.’ A conclusion here is that
many comments indicate that Standards are
planned to be implemented in the future, but there
is no explanation on why implementation is
postponed to the future.
None of the other control variables is significant
in the two models summarized in Table 7,
including the ‘Group’ variable. This evidence
supports the expectation that Anglo-culture
countries generally have similar responses to the
issues of use of and compliance with Standards.
However, the constant in both models is highly
significant (p < 0.001), indicating missing
variables.6
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study indicate that overall 13.5
percent of IIA-member CAEs in Anglo-culture
countries do not use the Standards, and of those
that do, a significant number fail to comply with
specific standards. Most significantly, 14.8 percent
of CAEs indicate that they do not comply with
Attribute Standard #1300 (Quality Assurance &
Improvement). Multivariate tests show that ‘Length
of IIA membership’ and ‘Internal auditing
certification’ are positively associated with use.
Other significant variables are ‘Superseded by
local/government regulations or standards’ and
‘Not perceived as adding value by management/
board’ that are inversely associated with use. While
the length of CPE training positively affects
compliance, IA certification is inversely related to
compliance. Other significant variables that are
inversely related to compliance are ‘Standards are
too costly,’ ‘Not perceived as adding value by
management/board,’ and ‘Inadequate internal
audit staff.’
Many control variables were also tested, of
which only a catchall variable, ‘Other’ was highly
significant for both use and compliance with
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
M. J. Abdolmohammadi
Standards. CAEs provided various explanations for
their choice of ‘Other.’ For example, approximately
30 CAEs indicated that they had just started
their internal audit functions, which was too small
to use the Standards. Finally, as expected the data
indicates no significance for differences in
non-Commonwealth and old-Commonwealth
responses of CAEs.
The results of the study suggest certain strategies
to improve the use of and compliance with the
Standards. For example, the IIA has a practice
of allowing membership without being qualified
as a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA). This is
understandable because historically many
members who practiced in accounting related
fields (e.g., public accounting) who were certified
in their field (e.g., CPAs) took jobs as internal
auditors and became members of the IIA. Since the
results in this study indicate that the length of IIA
membership and internal auditing certification
(e.g., CIA) are positively related to use of Standards,
it follows that the IIA may want to consider
promoting membership while at the same time
placing more emphasis on the importance of
certification to membership. Other professional
organizations such as the AICPA limit their full
membership to only those who have qualified
as Certified Public Accountants. However,
unexpectedly, the results indicate that IA
certification is inversely associated with
compliance with Standards. It is not clear why the
results turned out this way. Future studies are
needed to investigate this issue further and find
explanations for it.
The significance of the ‘Other’ variable, coupled
with the high significance of the model constants
indicates that there are missing variables in the
models tested. This finding suggests a need for
future research in which an expanded set of
theoretically justifiable variables are identified and
included in regression models. For example, some
CAEs indicated that while they were not currently
using the Standards, they would implement the
Standards in the future. An investigation of the
factors that contribute to postponement of use or
compliance with Standards may be a worthwhile
research direction. A variable may be the level of
knowledge or expertise of the CAEs that might
affect the degree of use and compliance with
Standards.
The focus of this paper is on Anglo-culture CAEs.
This focus was taken to mitigate inter-cultural
differences. The insignificance of the ‘Group’
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)
Factors Associated with the Use of and Compliance with the IIA Standards: A Study of Anglo-culture CAEs
variable in the models tested indicates that indeed
there were no significant differences in responses
of CAEs from the non-Commonwealth (the US)
and old-Commonwealth countries (Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, and UK/Ireland) regarding
the use of or compliance with Standards. However,
the cultural relativism literature (e.g., Hofstede,
1983; House et al., 2004) suggests differences in
responses of CAEs from countries with different
cultures (e.g., Anglo-culture vs. Germanic Europe).
This expectation signals future research directions
in which responses from CAEs operating in various
cultural groups can be compared.
A related issue for future research is to extend
the current study to include responses from other
internal auditors, not just CAEs. The CAE
responses are valid data for the purpose of the
current study because CAEs are the highest
internal audit authority in organizations, where
they develop and enforce policies such as use
of and compliance with Standards. However,
extending the study to compare responses from
non-CAE internal auditors such as internal audit
managers (who typically have operational internal
audit responsibilities) may be a fruitful research
direction.
Finally, identification of the variables associated
with use and compliance suggest ways to improve
these variables (e.g., CPE training) to encourage
more diligent future use and compliance with
Standards. This conclusion suggests future research
directions specifically focused on the variables that
may be closely associated with use and compliance.
For example, cultural settings in which there is
respect for the rule of law and professional
guidance may result in higher levels of use and
compliance with Standards than cultural settings
where deviations from the rule of law and
professional guidance are tolerated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper has benefitted greatly from constructive
comments of two anonymous reviewers and
revision guidance from the guest editor, Gerrit
Sarens, for which I am thankful. The source of data
for the study is the Common Body of Knowledge in
internal auditing (CBOK 2006) database. I thank the
Institute of Internal Auditors’ Research Foundation
for the financial support to develop CBOK (2006)
and to use it for research papers. I also thank
Bentley University for the opportunity to use the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
41
CBOK database as a part of my sabbatical leave
project in 2008–09.
NOTES
1. Classification of these countries into Old-
Commonwealth has two noteworthy limitations.
The first is that Ireland is technically not an ‘Old-
Commonwealth’ country. However, Ireland has
significant Anglo influence from the UK, and the
CBOK (2006) database has responses identified
as UK/Ireland, which may be viewed as a
limitation. The second limitation is that, while a
member of the Old-Commonwealth countries,
some Canadian responses were from provinces
with strong French influence (e.g., Quebec). No
attempt was made to exclude these responses
from Canadian CAEs.
2. Since data were collected by the IIA from its
membership, there is no reason to believe that
any of the CAEs in the sample were not
members of the IIA.
3. As reported later, other standards were also
included as dependent variables with results
similar to those of AS #1300.
4. AS #1300 is so important to the Standards that,
since 2002, the Performance Standard #2600,
Resolution of Risks, requires that CAEs bring
to the attention of the organization’s board any
risk that is not adequately addressed by
management.
5. This classification is somewhat subjective
because CAEs used different wording to
describe their choice of ‘Other’.
6. The results reported in this section are robust
in the sense that replacing variables with other
variables that indicated high correlation in
Table 6 does not change the essence of the results.
For example, using age instead of membership
years in the models make very minor changes to
the statistics reported in Table 7, but main results
hold. Also, replacing AS #1300 as a dependent
variable with other standards listed in Table 4
renders largely the same results.
REFERENCES
Abdolmohammadi, M., Burnaby, P. A. & Hass, S.
(2006), ‘A review of prior common body of
knowledge (CBOK) studies in internal auditing and
an overview of the global CBOK 2006’, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 811–21.
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)
42
Bradshaw, M. T. & Miller, G. S. (2008), ‘Will
harmonizing accounting standards really
harmonize accounting? Evidence from non-US
firms adopting US GAAP’, Journal of Accounting,
Auditing & Finance, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 233–63.
Burnaby, P. A., Abdolmohammadi, M. & Hass, S.
(2007), A Global Summary of the Common Body of
Knowledge 2006 – Preview Edition. Altamonte
Springs, FL: The Institute of Internal Auditors
Research Foundation.
Burnaby, P. A., Abdolmohammadi, M., Hass, S.,
Sarens, G. & Alegrini, M. (2008), ‘Usage of internal
auditing standards by companies in the United
States and select European countries’. Paper
presented at the International Conference on
Corporate Governance and Internal Auditing,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 21–22 April.
CBOK (2006), Common Body of Knowledge in Internal
Auditing Data Base. Altamonte Springs, FL: The
Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation.
Clemmons, D. (2007), ‘Benchmarking performance,’
The Internal Auditor, Vol. 64, No. 6, pp. 76–77.
Gramling, A. A. & Hermanson, D. R. (2008), ‘The
PCAOB’s proposed guidance for auditors of smaller
public companies’, Internal Auditing, Vol. 23, pp.
40–43.
Gray, S. J. (1988), ‘Towards a theory of cultural
influence on the development of accounting
systems internationally’, Abacus, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.
1–15.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2009
M. J. Abdolmohammadi
Hofstede, G. (1983), ‘Dimensions of national culture
in fifty countries and three regions’, in Deregowski,
J. B., Dziurawiec, S. & Annis, R. C. (eds), Explications
in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Lisse: Swets and
Zeitling.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W.
& Gupta, V. (eds), (2004), Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
IIA (2008), The International Standards for the
Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. http://
www.theiia.org/guidance/standards-and-
practices/professional-practices-framework/
standards/?search=standards
AUTHOR PROFILE
Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi is the John
Rhodes Professor of Accounting at Bentley
University in Waltham, Massachusetts. His work
on external and internal auditing has appeared in
many journals, including The Accounting Review,
Auditing: a Journal of Practice and Theory, and
Internal Auditing. His research interests include
behavioral auditing, expertise and ethics.
Int. J. Audit. 13: 27–42 (2009)