Processing, Please wait...

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Management Science Letters » Supreme audit court of auditors' insights on operational audit challenges

Journals

  • IJIEC (747)
  • MSL (2643)
  • DSL (668)
  • CCL (508)
  • USCM (1092)
  • ESM (413)
  • AC (562)
  • JPM (271)
  • IJDS (912)
  • JFS (91)
  • HE (32)
  • SCI (26)

MSL Volumes

    • Volume 1 (70)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (25)
    • Volume 2 (365)
      • Issue 1 (51)
      • Issue 2 (32)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (44)
      • Issue 5 (42)
      • Issue 6 (52)
      • Issue 7 (53)
      • Issue 8 (51)
    • Volume 3 (426)
      • Issue 1 (40)
      • Issue 2 (47)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (27)
      • Issue 6 (50)
      • Issue 7 (51)
      • Issue 8 (30)
      • Issue 9 (24)
      • Issue 10 (25)
      • Issue 11 (25)
      • Issue 12 (27)
    • Volume 4 (387)
      • Issue 1 (34)
      • Issue 2 (30)
      • Issue 3 (34)
      • Issue 4 (42)
      • Issue 5 (33)
      • Issue 6 (43)
      • Issue 7 (42)
      • Issue 8 (40)
      • Issue 9 (39)
      • Issue 10 (20)
      • Issue 11 (18)
      • Issue 12 (12)
    • Volume 5 (129)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (10)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (14)
      • Issue 6 (14)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (8)
      • Issue 9 (11)
      • Issue 10 (8)
      • Issue 11 (9)
      • Issue 12 (10)
    • Volume 6 (74)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (6)
      • Issue 4 (7)
      • Issue 5 (6)
      • Issue 6 (6)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (5)
      • Issue 10 (5)
      • Issue 11 (5)
      • Issue 12 (5)
    • Volume 7 (54)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (5)
      • Issue 6 (5)
      • Issue 7 (4)
      • Issue 8 (4)
      • Issue 9 (4)
      • Issue 10 (4)
      • Issue 11 (4)
      • Issue 12 (4)
    • Volume 8 (119)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (22)
      • Issue 6 (20)
      • Issue 7 (6)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (8)
      • Issue 10 (10)
      • Issue 11 (11)
      • Issue 12 (16)
    • Volume 9 (208)
      • Issue 1 (16)
      • Issue 2 (14)
      • Issue 3 (11)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (12)
      • Issue 6 (16)
      • Issue 7 (16)
      • Issue 8 (16)
      • Issue 9 (16)
      • Issue 10 (16)
      • Issue 11 (19)
      • Issue 12 (20)
      • Issue 13 (24)
    • Volume 10 (448)
      • Issue 1 (24)
      • Issue 2 (25)
      • Issue 3 (24)
      • Issue 4 (25)
      • Issue 5 (26)
      • Issue 6 (26)
      • Issue 7 (25)
      • Issue 8 (27)
      • Issue 9 (27)
      • Issue 10 (30)
      • Issue 11 (33)
      • Issue 12 (30)
      • Issue 13 (30)
      • Issue 14 (30)
      • Issue 15 (30)
      • Issue 16 (36)
    • Volume 11 (251)
      • Issue 1 (36)
      • Issue 2 (39)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (29)
      • Issue 6 (27)
      • Issue 7 (20)
      • Issue 8 (12)
      • Issue 9 (8)
    • Volume 12 (33)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (13)
    • Volume 13 (27)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • Volume 14 (22)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • Volume 15 (24)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • Volume 16 (6)
      • Issue 1 (6)

Keywords

Supply chain management(166)
Jordan(161)
Vietnam(149)
Customer satisfaction(120)
Performance(113)
Supply chain(110)
Service quality(98)
Competitive advantage(95)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
SMEs(87)
optimization(86)
Financial performance(83)
Trust(83)
TOPSIS(83)
Sustainability(81)
Job satisfaction(80)
Factor analysis(78)
Social media(78)
Knowledge Management(77)
Artificial intelligence(77)


» Show all keywords

Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(64)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(63)
Endri Endri(45)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Hotlan Siagian(39)
Jumadil Saputra(36)
Dmaithan Almajali(36)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Ahmad Makui(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Hassan Ghodrati(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Sautma Ronni Basana(29)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Prasadja Ricardianto(28)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(27)


» Show all authors

Countries

Iran(2183)
Indonesia(1290)
India(787)
Jordan(786)
Vietnam(504)
Saudi Arabia(453)
Malaysia(441)
United Arab Emirates(220)
China(206)
Thailand(153)
United States(111)
Turkey(106)
Ukraine(104)
Egypt(98)
Canada(92)
Peru(88)
Pakistan(85)
United Kingdom(80)
Morocco(79)
Nigeria(78)


» Show all countries

Management Science Letters

ISSN 1923-9343 (Online) - ISSN 1923-9335 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 2 Issue 3 pp. 757-762 , 2012

Supreme audit court of auditors' insights on operational audit challenges Pages 757-762 Right click to download the paper Download PDF

Authors: Ghodratollah Haidarinejad, Sohrab Shekarbegi, Ali Akbar Kazemi, Sadegh Jamili

DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2012.01.003

Keywords: Operational audit, Senior auditors, Supreme audit court of auditors

Abstract: Operational audit plays an important role on managing governmental budget. It helps control government spending and other important budgetary issues. This paper presents an empirical study to find out the possible barriers on implementing operational audit. The proposed study distributes some questionnaires among supreme audit court of auditors and analyzes the questions. The results indicate that many governmental organizations are not strongly committed to rules and regulations. There are not sufficient standards on auditing programs and many governmental agencies do not even use operational budgeting system since they are not aware of the benefits of such system. There are some of the most important challenges of having operational budgeting and paper suggests some guidelines for having better regulation on removing the main barriers.

How to cite this paper
Haidarinejad, G., Shekarbegi, S., Kazemi, A & Jamili, S. (2012). Supreme audit court of auditors' insights on operational audit challenges.Management Science Letters , 2(3), 757-762.

Refrences
Abidin, S., Beattie, V., & Goodacre, A. (2010). Audit market structure, fees and choice in a period of structural change: Evidence from the UK – 1998–2003. The British Accounting Review, 42(3), 187-206

Blume, L., & Voigt, S. (2011). Does organizational design of supreme audit institutions matter? A cross-country assessment. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2), 215-229.

Chung, J., Farrar, J., Puri, P., & Thorne, L. (2010). Auditor liability to third parties after Sarbanes-Oxley: An international comparison of regulatory and legal reforms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19(1), 66-78.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 32 (200), 675–701.

Friedman, M. (1940). A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(1), 86–92.

Giroux, G., & Cassell, C. (2011). Changing audit risk characteristics in the public client market. Research in Accounting Regulation, 23(2), 177-183.

Guénin-Paracini, H., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Auditors as modern pharmakoi: Legitimacy paradoxes and the production of economic order. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(2), 134-158.

Jennings, M.M., Pany, K., & Reckers, P.M.J. (2008). Internal control audits: Judges & apos; perceptions of the credibility of the financial reporting process and likely auditor liability. Advances in Accounting, 24(2), 182-190.

Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.

Lima, L.H., & Magrini, A. (2010). The Brazilian Audit Tribunal & apos; s role in improving the federal environmental licensing process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2), 108-115.

Lines, R., & Nicholson, H. (1994). Nontrivial CAATs: Computer support for complex operational auditing. Computer Audit Update, 1994(1), 21-30

Numata, S., & Takeda, F. (2010). Stock market reactions to audit failure in Japan: The case of Kanebo and ChuoAoyama. The International Journal of Accounting, 45(2), 175-199.

Radcliffe, V. S. (2008). Public secrecy in auditing: What government auditors cannot know. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(1), 99-126.

Schelker, M., & Eichenberger, R. (2010). Auditors and fiscal policy: Empirical evidence on a little big institution. Journal of Comparative Economics, 38(4), 357-380.
  • 17
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Journal: Management Science Letters | Year: 2012 | Volume: 2 | Issue: 3 | Views: 2270 | Reviews: 0

Related Articles:
  • Auditor-management alignment and audit opinion: Evidence from Iran
  • A survey on relationship between reported condition note in audit report an ...
  • A survey on different challenges confronting auditing system
  • Application of Delphi method for determining the affecting factors upon aud ...
  • Fuzzy audit risk modeling algorithm

Add Reviews

Name:*
E-Mail:
Review:
Bold Italic Underline Strike | Align left Center Align right | Insert smilies Insert link URLInsert protected URL Select color | Add Hidden Text Insert Quote Convert selected text from selection to Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet Insert spoiler
winkwinkedsmileam
belayfeelfellowlaughing
lollovenorecourse
requestsadtonguewassat
cryingwhatbullyangry
Security Code: *
Include security image CAPCHA.
Refresh Code

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com