If the org is already required by policy or regulation to do external QA reviews (which is standard in most places), not having that makes A a bigger red flag. In rare cases where it's not required, D could technically impact results more directly, but for CISA purposes I think A is right. Disagree?
Q: 1
Which of the following would present the GREATEST concern during a review of internal
audit quality assurance (QA) and continuous improvement processes?
Options
Discussion
A , not having periodic external assessments is a direct violation of mandatory QA standards, bigger flag than just missing some testing (D). Seen similar in CISA guides.
A , saw this in a similar practice set and official CISA guide says missing external QA violates standards, which is a huge problem for audit credibility.
D . If you don't do substantive testing during some assessments, you could totally miss key control failures. That feels like a bigger risk to audit quality, even if A is more about compliance.
Missing external QA reviews (A) is a direct standards violation, so it's the biggest problem here. Consistency in tracking (C) matters, but not meeting IIA requirements for external review is the real deal-breaker. Pretty sure about this, but happy to hear any counterpoints.
A, No external reviews (A) is a mandatory QAIP failure, bigger concern than D missing testing, at least for CISA. Open to other views if I missed something.
Why isn't B considered more serious? Wouldn't lack of audit committee updates be a huge QA issue too?
A tbh. D trips people up since it sounds like a big risk, but similar exam questions point to A because external assessments are actually required by standards. Missing those is a huge red flag even if D feels riskier in practice.
D . Had something like this in a mock and picked D since not doing substantive testing could lead to missed audit issues, and that's a real problem for the quality of findings. External reviews (A) are key but feel more about compliance than immediate QA failures. Anyone else think D is riskier in practice? Not 100% sure though.
D imo. Skipping substantive testing during assessments means the audit might miss major findings, so that seems like a bigger concern to me. A is important but feels more like a process deficiency than a direct risk.
Be respectful. No spam.
Question 1 of 35