An Empirical Comparison of Internal and External Audit Supervision

Carries out a study which empirically examines both internal and external auditors in New Zealand to determine the extent to which 21 audit supervisory tools were used in audit practice. In addition to determining how frequently each of the supervisory techniques was used, the study tested two hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that the statistical variance for the number of audit supervisory techniques used on internal audits is greater than that for external audits. The second hypothesis was that the average number of audit supervisory techniques used on external audits is greater than that for internal audits, suggesting that external audits are more closely supervised than are internal audits. Both hypotheses were supported by the study data. In addition, supervisory profiles were constructed for both internal and external audits. The profiles indicated that while external audits appear to use more supervisory techniques during the course of the audit due to greater liability and competitive pressure, internal audits are more likely to require closer supervision of the release of audit reports and audit follow‐up.