Regression Analysis of Performance and Objectivity

This solved assignment presents the output of a regression analysis examining the relationship between performance, objectivity, and competence. The output includes unstandardized and standardized coefficients, t-values, and significance levels for each variable. Additionally, it explores excluded variables and collinearity statistics through partial correlations and tolerance values.

Running head: RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Table of Contents
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS........................................................................................................2
Purpose of the study.....................................................................................................................2
Interpretation of the Descriptive Statistics Table........................................................................2
Interpretation of the Correlations Tables.....................................................................................4
Interpretation of the Reliability Analysis Tables.........................................................................5
Interpretation of the Regression and ANOVA Table..................................................................8
Summary....................................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................13
Discussion..................................................................................................................................13
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................15
Implications for practice............................................................................................................17
Recommendations......................................................................................................................17
References......................................................................................................................................18
Appendices....................................................................................................................................23

2RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Purpose of the study
Purpose of the study was to explore and comprehend the influence of reliance by external
auditors on internal audits in Jordan. Three major factors were considered while conducting the
research, viz. Performance, Competency and Objectivity (Mekler et al. 2017). In-depth analysis
regarding the connection between the external and internal audit sectors within Jordan.
Hypotheses were constructed in relevance to determining the effect of the aforementioned three
factors. Reliability analysis has also been carried out to find the internal consistency between the
responses.
Interpretation of the Descriptive Statistics Table
The descriptive table is presented below, that provides the Minimum, Maximum,
Arithmetic mean and the Standard Deviation (Revelle 2017).
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
a1 200 1 5 3.60 1.129
a2 200 1 5 3.74 .978
a3 200 1 5 3.74 1.103
a4 200 1 5 3.83 1.096
a5 200 1 5 3.93 1.015
a6 200 1 5 3.73 1.016
a7 200 1 5 3.70 1.048
a8 200 1 5 3.80 .935
a9 200 1 5 3.82 .966
a10 200 1 5 3.82 .998
a11 200 1 5 3.76 1.014
a12 200 1 5 3.83 .829
a13 200 1 5 3.79 .950
a14 200 1 5 3.86 .895
a15 200 1 5 3.79 .894
a16 200 1 5 3.76 .936
a17 200 1 5 3.79 .931
a18 200 1 5 3.78 .925

3RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
a19 200 1 5 3.72 .989
a20 200 1 5 3.74 .968
a21 200 1 5 3.97 1.104
a22 200 1 5 4.05 1.041
a23 200 1 5 3.90 1.027
a24 200 1 5 3.80 1.152
a25 200 1 5 3.96 1.093
a26 200 1 5 3.96 1.160
a27 200 1 5 4.06 .941
a28 200 1 5 4.01 1.010
a29 200 1 5 4.08 1.007
a30 200 1 5 3.97 1.044
b1 200 1 5 3.94 1.040
b2 200 1 5 3.90 1.094
b3 200 1 5 3.86 1.047
b4 200 1 5 3.84 1.096
b5 200 1 5 3.82 1.042
b6 200 1 5 3.69 1.019
b7 200 1 5 3.60 1.103
b8 200 1 5 3.52 1.130
b9 200 1 5 3.55 1.102
b10 200 1 5 3.55 1.133
b11 200 1 5 4.10 .953
b12 200 1 5 4.10 1.037
b13 200 1 5 3.98 1.063
b14 200 1 5 3.88 1.128
b15 200 1 5 3.89 1.115
Performance: 200 1 5 3.77 .585
Competence 200 1 5 3.78 .545
Objectivity 200 1 5 3.97 .606
internal auditor
performance 200 1 5 3.84 .530
Nature 200 1 5 3.87 .727
Timing 200 1 5 3.58 .721
Extent 200 1 5 3.99 .706
external auditor 200 1 5 3.81 .650
Valid N (listwise) 200
Standard Deviation of the factors a1 to a30 and b1 to b15 are all around 1.00. The average values
of the three external auditors’ along with external auditor’s characteristics differ from 3.77 to
3.99.

4RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Interpretation of the Correlations Tables
From the correlations table, that showed the Pearsonian measure of Correlation, the
correlation values of Performance with Nature, Timing and Extent were found out to
be .746, .611 and .685 respectively (Wang and Zhang 2016). It is to be noted that Performance
is the independent variable under consideration and Nature, Timing and Extent are dependent
variables. Correlation between the external auditor and performance is 0.752. Thus, it can be
inferred that all of the variables have a positive relation with Performance (Zhou et al. 2016).
Especially, dependency of Nature and External Audits are of greater order. There exists a
moderately strong relation between these. That implies the increase of one would do the same for
the other dependent variables. Similarly if one decreases, same occurs for the others (Salleh
2015). Form the table the sig. (2-tailed) value is found to be 0.00 which is less than the level of
significance established 0.05. Thus we conclude there is a relation between performance and the
other aspects of external auditors and the null hypothesis, H01 is rejected (Bonett and Wright
2015). Implying, there is significant relation between internal auditor's performance and external
auditor's natures. Observing the table below, the correlations values are high for all the
independent factors along with the overall inter auditor performance with the external auditor
(Javanmard and Montanari 2014). This shows a positive correlation
Correlations
Nature Timing Extent
external
auditor
Performance: Pearson
Correlation .746(**) .611(**) .685(**) .752(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
Competence Pearson
Correlation .697(**) .584(**) .694(**) .727(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
Objectivity Pearson
Correlation
.759(**) .661(**) .731(**) .792(**)

5RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
internal auditor
performance
Pearson
Correlation .803(**) .677(**) .768(**) .828(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Ultimately, interpretation of the table above can be that performance of the internal auditor can
relies heavily on the external auditor’s factors (Beven 2018). In accordance to the hypotheses,
HO2 and HO3 are rejected, accentuating the significant relation between those (Tartakovsky,
Nikiforov and Basseville 2014). Among these, the relevance of Objectivity in Nature of the
external audit is significantly high. In fact the Pearsonian Correlation between the internal
auditor performance and Nature is .803, a high correlation. In all, the correlation value between
inter auditor and external auditor is found to be .828. As far as Objectivity of the internal
auditors is concerned, it has a correlation of .792 with the external auditor factor (Mcmahon, and
Murphy 2015). Thus in relevance to the hypotheses H07, H08 and H09, the sig. value is seen as
0.00 in every block. Thus the null hypotheses are rejected. Implying internal auditor’s
objectively has a significant role to play in the external auditor’s nature, timing and extent of
work as well.
Interpretation of the Reliability Analysis Tables
Several Reliability Analysis tables are presented to understand the reliability of the
factors presented in the scale items (Larsson 2015).
The first table named SCALE (SA1) includes the variables A1 to A10.
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S A 1)

6RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
3.7705 3.6050 3.9300 .3250 1.0902 .0078
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
1.0611 .8744 1.2754 .4010 1.4586 .0177
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
.2621 .0844 .5330 .4486 6.3140 .0069
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
.2477 .0931 .4412 .3481 4.7412 .0056
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
A1 34.1000 28.2814 .3865 .1860 .7536
A2 33.9650 29.1596 .3863 .1953 .7525
A3 33.9600 26.9029 .5315 .3286 .7321
A4 33.8800 28.0760 .4240 .2465 .7479
A5 33.7750 28.3562 .4452 .2403 .7449
A6 33.9750 28.5974 .4205 .2513 .7482
A7 34.0100 28.6532 .3966 .2149 .7515
A8 33.9050 29.0010 .4293 .2606 .7473
A9 33.8850 28.6450 .4472 .2961 .7449
A10 33.8900 28.5306 .4383 .2546 .7458
Reliability Coefficients 10 items
Alpha = .7664 Standardized item alpha = .7670
The above presented table is the result of 10 variables, viz. A1, A2 up to A10 (Rouse
2015). The table shows that correlation between corrected provided item variables and the total,
Squared Multiple Correlation between the individual variables and others and also the reliability
of the coefficient alpha if the respective variable is removed (Koo and Li 2016). No such
correlation value stands out as all of the values contain a mid value on the positive scale. This
shows moderately positive correlation between the variables and others (Hopkins 2017). If the

7RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
alpha value is deleted, the reliability measures presented at the end column, show high values of
reliability.
The second table named SCALE (SA2) includes the variables A11 to A20.
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S A 2)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
3.7815 3.7150 3.8650 .1500 1.0404 .0018
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
.8735 .6878 1.0275 .3397 1.4939 .0095
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
.2333 .0856 .3292 .2437 3.8485 .0027
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
.2690 .1043 .3630 .2587 3.4808 .0037
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
A11 34.0550 24.3437 .4357 .2425 .7688
A12 33.9900 25.2964 .4489 .2650 .7671
A13 34.0300 24.1197 .5042 .2698 .7597
A14 33.9500 24.2688 .5285 .3107 .7572
A15 34.0250 24.7481 .4699 .2523 .7643
A16 34.0550 24.9869 .4130 .2302 .7712
A17 34.0200 24.4519 .4788 .2564 .7630
A18 34.0350 24.5365 .4732 .2505 .7637
A19 34.1000 24.8040 .4005 .2168 .7732
A20 34.0750 25.0144 .3902 .1678 .7743
Reliability Coefficients 10 items
Alpha = .7846 Standardized item alpha = .7863
A similar sort of inference can be done on this table as well. The respective correlation
values are near the .5 mark and show a moderate correlation between the variables A2 with
others (Bolarinwa 2015). Table 3 showcases similar set of values and the interpretation would be

8RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
the same. Fourth table includes all the variables A1 to A30 and provides a scale for overall
relation between all the variables (Yu and Richardson 2015). The Squared Multiple Correlation
values can be observed with the value centered on a bit more than .3. This implies although there
is not a strong relation between them, however, there exists positive relation (Koo. and Li 2016).
The reliability of the scales if any one of the respective variables were deleted in the fourth table
is high and majority is greater than 0.9. This means that it is also to be noted the item means and
variances along with the inter-item co variances and correlations are also provided in the
respective tables (Kim, Lee and Lim 2017). In all, it can be concluded that required level of
internal consistency is existent in the scale items.
Interpretation of the Regression and ANOVA Table
From the first Regression table, R-squared value is found to be .650. This implies that
that nature explains 65% of the internal auditor’s characters (Bennell and Canter 2017). The
first ANOVA Table provided considers Nature as the dependent variable and Objectivity,
Competence and Performance are the constants. ANOVA tables are constructed to test whether a
significant difference between the two distinct group means exists (Austin and Steyerberg 2015).
The significance value is calculated as 0.00 which is less than the fixed level of significance
value, 0.05 (Binabaj 2014). Thus the reliance of internal auditor’s mentioned aspects on the
nature of the external auditors is high.
The two following tables to the first one are concerned with the relation between Timing
and Extent with the three factors of internal auditors (Moon 2016). Further tables are also
provided to illustrate the relation between the variables (Park 2015). The mean of the Inter-item
correlations of the respective tables are given below.

9RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Table Mean Inter-item
Correlations value
Variables under consideration
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( SA 1) .2477 A1 – A10
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( SA 2) .2690 A11 – A20
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( SA 3) .2550 A21 – A30
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( A ) .2533 A1 – A30
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( SB 1) .3772 B1 – B5
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( SB 2) .2903 B6 – B10
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( SB 3) .3026 B11 – B15
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE ( B ) .3212 B1 – B15
Thus, it is evident that although there is not a high correlation between the items when taken
separately and taken altogether, there does exist a positive relation among them (Hildebrand and
Noteborn 2015). The tables also report the outcomes of the analysis of variance table to infer
from statistical hypotheses testing. The results suggest that inter auditor’s work characteristics
has a relation with the external audits (Billings 2015). The extents to which the external auditors
rely on the functionalities of the internal audits have been established as well (Sabi et al. 2015).
From the relevant regression table, the effect of the extent of work on the internal auditors can be
comprehended from the respective R-squared value. That is .594. Implying almost 60% can be
described by the factors in terms of the said two.
The following table shows the count and respective percentage of the responses classified
into five categories, viz. Strongly Disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A) and

10RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Strongly Agree (SA). The table shows the counts of the factors a1 to a30 as from the
questionnaire.
SD D N A SA
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
a1 8 4.0 25 12.5 59 29.5 54 27.0 54 27.0
a2 4 2.0 11 5.5 71 35.5 61 30.5 53 26.5
a3 10 5.0 11 5.5 60 30.0 58 29.0 61 30.5
a4 11 5.5 5 2.5 59 29.5 58 29.0 67 33.5
a5 8 4.0 7 3.5 41 20.5 79 39.5 65 32.5
a6 6 3.0 11 5.5 68 34.0 61 30.5 54 27.0
a7 10 5.0 6 3.0 71 35.5 61 30.5 52 26.0
a8 3 1.5 7 3.5 72 36.0 63 31.5 55 27.5
a9 3 1.5 12 6.0 60 30.0 68 34.0 57 28.5
a10 5 2.5 11 5.5 58 29.0 68 34.0 58 29.0
a11 7 3.5 9 4.5 63 31.5 67 33.5 54 27.0
a12 1 .5 8 4.0 59 29.5 89 44.5 43 21.5
a13 7 3.5 5 2.5 59 29.5 82 41.0 47 23.5
a14 4 2.0 5 2.5 56 28.0 84 42.0 51 25.5
a15 4 2.0 5 2.5 66 33.0 79 39.5 46 23.0

11RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
a16 7 3.5 3 1.5 66 33.0 79 39.5 45 22.5
a17 7 3.5 2 1.0 63 31.5 81 40.5 47 23.5
a18 5 2.5 4 2.0 70 35.0 72 36.0 49 24.5
a19 7 3.5 8 4.0 68 34.0 69 34.5 48 24.0
a20 5 2.5 10 5.0 66 33.0 70 35.0 49 24.5
a21 8 4.0 10 5.0 47 23.5 51 25.5 84 42.0
a22 5 2.5 8 4.0 49 24.5 48 24.0 90 45.0
a23 8 4.0 2 1.0 62 31.0 58 29.0 70 35.0
a24 8 4.0 16 8.0 60 30.0 40 20.0 76 38.0
a25 8 4.0 9 4.5 48 24.0 53 26.5 82 41.0
a26 9 4.5 16 8.0 36 18.0 52 26.0 87 43.5
a27 3 1.5 8 4.0 40 20.0 71 35.5 78 39.0
a28 7 3.5 4 2.0 47 23.5 65 32.5 77 38.5
a29 6 3.0 4 2.0 46 23.0 57 28.5 87 43.5
a30 5 2.5 12 6.0 46 23.0 59 29.5 78 39.0
Five different columns show the responses classified according the levels. Within each column
the count and its respective percentage are displayed. It is evident from the table that majority of

12RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
the responses are in the neutral category. This implies the lack of proper knowledge regarding
the subject matter in the relevant test taker. The counts are significantly high in the middle
column representing the number of respondents that have chosen neutral as answer.
Summary
In all, the results show that there is a positive relation between the internal auditors and
external auditors. The performance of the internal auditors relies heavily on the external auditor.
The nature of the relationship has been diagnosed with the regression tables (Jahnke, Olsen and
Procaccini 2015). The reliance of nature, extent and work timing of the external auditor’s on the
internal auditor’s competence has also been taken in account while conducting the research
work. In congruence with the research questions stated, the reports show the utilization of the
various components of the external audit in order to raise the performance level of the external
auditor’s works (Dominguez-Gutierrez 2014). The similarity in the objectives were also tested to
see whether their lies same goals between the two (List, Shaikh and Xu 2016). There were nine
hypotheses developed, which have all been addressed. Statistical hypothesis testing has been
conducted to test the hypotheses (Bonett and Wright 2015). The hypotheses were rejected,
implying the existence of certain relation between the mentioned factors of the two auditing
groups.
Be that as it may, the choice external auditors take with respect to how much they may
depend on the internal auditor’s work amid assessment work, ought to be bolstered by a full
comprehension of the quality of their customer's inner auditing. This sort of understanding is
generally accomplished amid the trials stage where external workers assess their customers'
interior controls to guarantee that they are able to do counteracting and recognizing any
falsifications.

13RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING

14RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
Major aim of the study was to test the impact of reliance of external audit on the internal
audit. This study finds the relation between the performance, competence and objectivity of the
internal audit and the extent, nature and timing of the external audits. Through the results and
tables, it is evident that there is a relation among those. The report acknowledges the reliance of
the internal auditor’s performance on the external audit group. It also identifies the positive
relation between the other two factors of inter auditing and the external auditors.
Initially the descriptive table shows the average scores and the corresponding standard
deviations. The mean values are on the higher side of 3.5 but majorly lower than 4. This is
defined as the High Level as it falls in the range of 3.68 to 5.00. The correlation table shows the
various Pearsonian correlation values between the variables. Amongst these, the significance
value was found out be 0.00 in each case and thus the null hypotheses have been rejected. This
implies the existence of relation between the variables. As the study is primarily interested in
evaluating the relation between the two, the results show that the external auditors will have the
need of internal auditors to obtain the audit evidence.
One of the major drawbacks of the conducted study was that of regarding the responses
from the various auditors. Reliability analysis has been used to depict the internal consistency
reliability. The usage and implication of the scales have already been discussed. Through the
relevant tables, the influence of the chosen variables on the test scores have been presented and
further analyzed. The tables show moderate coordination between the variables a1 to a30 and b1
to b15. The measured value of 0.7 had been set as the limit as the Cronbah’s alpha measure.

15RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Initially, the audit group serves as any organization’s primary connector to the external
auditor. Supervising the internal auditing team is also the duty of the auditing authorities.
Being familiar with the auditing committee members and its policies, an auditor has the
opportunity to be reluctant whether knowingly or unknowingly to assess inner auditing
procedures or manipulate approaches of financial reporting guidelines due to the fact that a
negative assessment on these subjects could probably harm their social image. This thesis is
considered to modify the nature of auditing in Jordan as the dependence of outer review group
will build a platform for the inner reviews and spare time in encouraging budgetary goals in
Jordan. The collaboration between the inner review group and outer audit group will in light of
this exploration, raise the proficiency of the inner group and decrease the responsibility of
leading the propel reviews by the outer review firm. As the connection between an
organization’s managing authorities and its external auditor, the audit team has a significant role
to play in managing and representing the financial activities. Observing the social coalition, the
research has focused primarily on the ties and dependency, transcendently centered on whether
review board of trustees official or casual ties with firm.
Furthermore, audit committee individuals and the external auditors are impartial about
each other has been majorly overlooked. This study also suggests that
committee members cannot be presumed to be unbiased towards external auditors, and
the interpersonal relation between members of the internal and external
auditors among these two parties can significantly alter the audit quality.

16RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Conclusion
In conclusion, the reliance between the external auditors and the internal auditors are
established in this report. Furthermore, the detailed analysis regarding the variability has been
conducted in the report to provide evidence to the hypotheses proposed. As the hypotheses are
rejected it shows a positive relation between the aforementioned variables. As the chosen region
has been Jordan, the results indicate such of auditors in respective region. The Nature, Timing
and extent of the external auditors are correlated with internal auditor’s Performance, Objectivity
and Competence. The procedures, work timing and the extent of the work done of the eternal
audits is directly related to the performance levels of the internal audits.
This study is involved in investigating external auditor’s reliance on internal auditor.
Initially the functional factor of the internal auditors, viz. Competence, Objectivity and
Performance, along with the external auditor’s three aspects of work performance, viz. Nature,
Timing and Extent was explored. Thus the results will provide assistance to the auditors in
Jordan to have a better understanding the relation between them and the internal auditors. The
principle of the study was to clarify the reality of the test of the dependence of external auditors
on interior evaluators in Jordan. It has been seen that few destinations are explored for
concentrate the view of outer evaluators relying on assortment of elements that was affected the
dependence of interior examiner at the season of future review work. The identified factors are
Competency, Objectivity and Job Performance. Generally, these outcomes demonstrate that
members were indifferent to the conceivable contrasts in inner audit’s objectivity emerging from
the sourcing research plan. To the extent control assessment work is of concern, external auditors
depend less on work performed by inner auditors and will likewise utilize interior evaluators as
aides to a lesser degree when inside audit has been specifically engaged with money related

17RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
frameworks consultancy. This demonstrates, while external audits’ dependency choices in
connection to substantive testing are not influenced by interior evaluators' inclusion in
frameworks consultancy, they are touchy to the likelihood of inside review self-survey the extent
that assessing inward controls is concerned.
The outcomes have critical consequences for controllers and others concerned about the
part of review in corporate administration. The requirement for solid administration has
prompted expanding expenses of consistence and consequently analyzing the most proficient and
powerful harmony amongst inner and exterior auditing remains a daunting test. This research
features some factors that can influence external auditor’s dependence on inward review work in
the present administration condition. At the point when auditors internally take part in
frameworks counseling, the likelihood of a self-survey danger is probably going to lessen their
commitment to the external auditing. Subsequently, firms need to consider the exchange off
between the additional incentive from having inner auditors take part in counseling exercises and
the extra outer review expenses that could emerge in view of an absence of dependence on
interior auditing. More inside and out examination of this exchange off is an essential road for
future research.
Overall, the objective of the study has all been explored, comprehended, analyzed and
represented in table figures. The ability of the internal auditors to provide quality performance
relies on the theories, policies, timing and amount of work output of the external auditors. The
work goals or judgments of the internal auditors have influence of the three mentioned factors of
the external auditors. It requires the external auditors to maintain a certain level of quality in
terms of work efficiency. However, the internal auditor’s extent and field of work does influence
the decision-making of the external auditors.

18RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Implications for practice
The primary focus of the study was to evaluate whether outsourced auditors relied on the
internal auditors or not. Furthermore, the impact of such reliance has also been looked into.
Accordingly, consequent statistical analysis revealed the reliance of external auditors on internal
auditors. Internal auditing revolves around measuring the efficiency levels of the activities in the
organization. They are also entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating such. This study
provides the scope to understand the relevant and necessary connection between the internal and
external auditors' and their work. This research is focused on finding and thereafter analyzing the
various prospects of human activities, nature and respective outcomes. The relevance of external
auditing is not brought into question, rather the implications and relevance of external auditing
on the organization is looked into.
This research can be considered as quantitative study with a descriptive approach. Work
nature, timing and the extent to which the auditors' work is relevant has been regarded as the
independent characteristic of the external auditors under study. As discussed in the literature
review chapter of the study, the results are in congruence with majority of the works discussed.
The factors chosen through in-depth research work, has shown positive relation between the two
auditing sections.
Recommendations
This thesis was based on the three aspects of each internal auditing and external auditing.
The chosen aspects were Performance, Competence and Objectivity of the internal auditors and
Nature, Timing and Extent of the external auditors respectively. Continued research could
involve other several factors which influence the works of external auditors. This study has
portrayed an overall scenario of the influences of internal auditors on the external auditors.

19RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Further testing is recommended on the more focused issues of work ethics that may have higher
influence than others. However, it is advised to use a balanced design and accordingly carry out a
reliability analysis to test the reliability of the scale measures. As presented in the table in the
literature review section of the study, Objectivity has the most relevance. This report finds the
same results. Thus further research could be conducted on finding the specifics of the subject
matter.
The research was conducted in Jordan only. With proper resources, in terms of both
finance and labor, a broader region can be chosen to implement the research theory. Even though
the data shows the need of mergence of the two auditing sections, it may be hard in reality to do
so. Thus proper communication is needed to represent the data in manner that would showcase
the necessity of such. The results may vary depending on the region chosen for study. Thus
proper sampling techniques need to be implied in order to get a relevant sample data.
As inferred from the detailed research and analysis of the subject matter, it is suggested to
incorporate policies or strategies to unify the internal and external audit workforce. The reliance
of external auditors on the work of the internal auditors has been well established in this study.
Thus, according actions should be taken to ensure higher productivity of the organization or
region in general.

20RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
References
Austin, P.C. and Steyerberg, E.W., 2015. The number of subjects per variable required in linear
regression analyses. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 68(6), pp.627-636.
Bennell, C. and Canter, D.V., 2017. „Linking Commercial Burglaries by Modus Operandi: Tests
Using Regression and ROC Analysis‟. Science and Justice.
Beven, K.J., 2018. On hypothesis testing in hydrology: why falsification of models is still a
really good idea. WIREs WATER.
Billings, A.A., 2015. Psychometric Evaluation of the Wang Pregnancy Stress Scale: Revised for
Taiwanese Women. Journal of nursing measurement, 23(3), p.409.
Binabaj, F.B., Farhangfar, H., Azizian, S., Jafari, M. and Hassanpour, K., 2014. Logistic
Regression Analysis of Some Factors Influencing Incidence of Retained Placenta in a
Holstein Dairy Herd. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 4(2).
Bolarinwa, O.A., 2015. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of
questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigerian Postgraduate
Medical Journal, 22(4), p.195.
Bonett, D.G. and Wright, T.A., 2015. Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation,
hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1),
pp.3-15.

21RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Bonett, D.G. and Wright, T.A., 2015. Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation,
hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1),
pp.3-15.
Dominguez-Gutierrez, P.R., Ceribelli, A., Satoh, M., Sobel, E.S., Reeves, W.H. and Chan, E.K.,
2014. Positive correlation of STAT1 and miR-146a with anemia in patients with systemic
lupus erythematosus. Journal of clinical immunology, 34(2), pp.171-180.
Hildebrand, M. and Noteborn, M.G., 2015. Exploration of the (interrater) reliability and latent
factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug
Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in a sample of Dutch probationers. Substance
use & misuse, 50(10), pp.1294-1306.
Hopkins, W.G., 2017. Spreadsheets for Analysis of Validity and Reliability. Sportscience, 21.
Jahnke, M., Olsen, J.L. and Procaccini, G., 2015. A meta‐analysis reveals a positive correlation
between genetic diversity metrics and environmental status in the long‐lived seagrass
Posidonia oceanica. Molecular ecology, 24(10), pp.2336-2348.
Javanmard, A. and Montanari, A., 2014. Confidence intervals and hypothesis testing for high-
dimensional regression. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1), pp.2869-
2909.
Kim, S., Lee, T.H. and Lim, W., 2017. System Reliability Analysis Considering Correlation of
Performances. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers. A, 41(4),
pp.291-297.

22RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Koo, T.K. and Li, M.Y., 2016. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation
coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), pp.155-163.
Koo, T.K. and Li, M.Y., 2016. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation
coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), pp.155-163.
LARSSON, O., 2015. Reliability analysis. LUND University.
List, J.A., Shaikh, A.M. and Xu, Y., 2016. Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental
economics (No. w21875). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Mcmahon, A.W. and Murphy, D.M., 2015. Stratification, Hypothesis Testing, and Clinical Trial
Simulation in Pediatric Drug Development. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 24,
pp.279-280.
Mekler, E.D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A.N. and Opwis, K., 2017. Towards understanding the
effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and
performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, pp.525-534.
Moon, K.W., 2016. Adding the Regression Results in Scatter Plot. In Learn ggplot2 Using Shiny
App (pp. 247-254). Springer International Publishing.
Park, H.M., 2015. Univariate analysis and normality test using SAS, Stata, and SPSS.
Revelle, W.R., 2017. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research.
Rouse, S.V., 2015. A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human
Behavior, 43, pp.304-307.

23RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Sabi, H.M., Uzoka, F.M.E., Langmia, K. and Njeh, F.N., 2016. Conceptualizing a model for
adoption of cloud computing in education. International Journal of Information
Management, 36(2), pp.183-191.
Salleh, F.H.M., Arif, S.M., Zainudin, S. and Firdaus-Raih, M., 2015. Reconstructing gene
regulatory networks from knock-out data using Gaussian noise model and Pearson
correlation coefficient. Computational biology and chemistry, 59, pp.3-14.
Tartakovsky, A., Nikiforov, I. and Basseville, M., 2014. Sequential analysis: Hypothesis testing
and changepoint detection. CRC Press.
Wang, S. and ZHANG, C., 2016. Computer architecture.
Yu, T. and Richardson, J.C., 2015. Examining reliability and validity of a Korean version of the
community of inquiry instrument using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The
Internet and Higher Education, 25, pp.45-52.
Zhou, H., Deng, Z., Xia, Y. and Fu, M., 2016. A new sampling method in particle filter based on
Pearson correlation coefficient. Neurocomputing, 216, pp.208-215.

24RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Appendices
comp sa1=mean (a1 to a10).
comp sa2=mean (a11 to a20).
comp sa3=mean (a21 to a30).
comp a =mean (a1 to a30).
comp sb1=mean (b1 to b5).
comp sb2=mean (b6 to b10).
comp sb3=mean (b11 to b15).
comp b =mean (b1 to b15).
reliab var a1 to a30
/scal (sa1) a1 to a10
/scal (sa2) a11 to a20
/scal (sa3) a21 to a30
/scal (a) a1 to a30
/summ all.
Reliability
****** Method 2 (covariance matrix) will be used for this analysis ******
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S A 1)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.7705 3.6050 3.9300 .3250
1.0902 .0078
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
1.0611 .8744 1.2754 .4010
1.4586 .0177
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2621 .0844 .5330 .4486
6.3140 .0069
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2477 .0931 .4412 .3481
4.7412 .0056

25RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
A1 34.1000
28.2814 .3865 .1860 .7536
A2 33.9650
29.1596 .3863 .1953 .7525
A3 33.9600
26.9029 .5315 .3286 .7321
A4 33.8800
28.0760 .4240 .2465 .7479
A5 33.7750
28.3562 .4452 .2403 .7449
A6 33.9750
28.5974 .4205 .2513 .7482
A7 34.0100
28.6532 .3966 .2149 .7515
A8 33.9050
29.0010 .4293 .2606 .7473
A9 33.8850
28.6450 .4472 .2961 .7449
A10 33.8900
28.5306 .4383 .2546 .7458
Reliability Coefficients 10 items
Alpha = .7664 Standardized item alpha = .7670
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S A 2)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.7815 3.7150 3.8650 .1500
1.0404 .0018
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min

26RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Variance
.8735 .6878 1.0275 .3397
1.4939 .0095
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2333 .0856 .3292 .2437
3.8485 .0027
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2690 .1043 .3630 .2587
3.4808 .0037
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
A11 34.0550
24.3437 .4357 .2425 .7688
A12 33.9900
25.2964 .4489 .2650 .7671
A13 34.0300
24.1197 .5042 .2698 .7597
A14 33.9500
24.2688 .5285 .3107 .7572
A15 34.0250
24.7481 .4699 .2523 .7643
A16 34.0550
24.9869 .4130 .2302 .7712
A17 34.0200
24.4519 .4788 .2564 .7630
A18 34.0350
24.5365 .4732 .2505 .7637
A19 34.1000
24.8040 .4005 .2168 .7732
A20 34.0750
25.0144 .3902 .1678 .7743
Reliability Coefficients 10 items
Alpha = .7846 Standardized item alpha = .7863

27RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S A 3)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.9745 3.8000 4.0750 .2750
1.0724 .0068
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
1.1233 .8852 1.3451 .4599
1.5196 .0213
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2830 .1430 .4337 .2907
3.0329 .0049
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2550 .1362 .4045 .2683
2.9695 .0047
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
A21 35.7800
31.1875 .3483 .1599 .7638
A22 35.6950
31.5698 .3464 .1337 .7633
A23 35.8450
29.5387 .5471 .3361 .7374
A24 35.9450
30.6955 .3668 .1597 .7619
A25 35.7850
30.6319 .4032 .1774 .7563
A26 35.7850
29.6772 .4496 .2190 .7502
A27 35.6800
31.2941 .4298 .2186 .7530

28RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
A28 35.7400
30.0728 .5065 .2731 .7429
A29 35.6700
30.0614 .5095 .2886 .7426
A30 35.7800
30.1323 .4784 .2687 .7463
Reliability Coefficients 10 items
Alpha = .7711 Standardized item alpha = .7739
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.8422 3.6050 4.0750 .4700
1.1304 .0142
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
1.0193 .6878 1.3451 .6573
1.9557 .0267
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2554 .0763 .5330 .4568
6.9901 .0055
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2533 .0814 .4848 .4034
5.9548 .0052
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A)
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected

29RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
A1 111.6600
237.0295 .4168 .3227 .9077
A2 111.5250
238.5923 .4384 .3336 .9071
A3 111.5200
233.9996 .5212 .4288 .9057
A4 111.4400
235.5743 .4765 .3843 .9065
A5 111.3350
234.6963 .5490 .3991 .9053
A6 111.5350
237.4862 .4560 .3853 .9069
A7 111.5700
236.5579 .4699 .3638 .9066
A8 111.4650
237.6671 .4945 .3772 .9063
A9 111.4450
238.7809 .4385 .3687 .9071
A10 111.4500
237.9472 .4501 .3645 .9069
A11 111.5050
237.2362 .4655 .3314 .9067
A12 111.4400
241.2024 .4235 .3528 .9074
A13 111.4800
235.5674 .5597 .4046 .9052
A14 111.4000
238.1106 .5029 .4573 .9062
A15 111.4750
237.4165 .5291 .3953 .9058
A16 111.5050
239.1759 .4401 .2955 .9071
A17 111.4700
235.6071 .5710 .4507 .9051
A18 111.4850
238.5224 .4696 .3546 .9066
A19 111.5500
237.3442 .4749 .3342 .9065
A20 111.5250
239.2959 .4196 .2567 .9074
A21 111.3000
238.0302 .3976 .2540 .9080
A22 111.2150
239.7174 .3723 .3212 .9083
A23 111.3650
233.4993 .5811 .4689 .9048
A24 111.4650
237.2752 .4001 .2523 .9080
A25 111.3050
238.2231 .3966 .2804 .9080

30RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
A26 111.3050
233.8814 .4954 .3600 .9063
A27 111.2000
237.2161 .5071 .3397 .9061
A28 111.2600
234.7361 .5507 .3884 .9053
A29 111.1900
233.9034 .5804 .4291 .9048
A30 111.3000
234.6533 .5334 .3900 .9055
Reliability Coefficients 30 items
Alpha = .9093 Standardized item alpha = .9105
reliab var b1 to b15
/scal (sb1) b1 to b5
/scal (sb2) b6 to b10
/scal (sb3) b11 to b15
/scal (b) b1 to b15
/summ all.
Reliability
****** Method 2 (covariance matrix) will be used for this analysis ******
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S B 1)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.8710 3.8150 3.9400 .1250
1.0328 .0025
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
1.1321 1.0818 1.2004 .1186
1.1096 .0037
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.3772 .1813 .4940 .3127
2.7245 .0089

31RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.3342 .1591 .4334 .2743
2.7240 .0073
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
B1 15.4150
9.2189 .4598 .2631 .6711
B2 15.4550
8.7115 .5108 .2998 .6501
B3 15.4950
8.9447 .5054 .2944 .6529
B4 15.5150
9.4671 .3764 .2020 .7052
B5 15.5400
8.9331 .5114 .2930 .6506
Reliability Coefficients 5 items
Alpha = .7142 Standardized item alpha = .7151
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S B 2)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.5800 3.5150 3.6900 .1750
1.0498 .0047
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
1.2059 1.0391 1.2839 .2448
1.2356 .0098

32RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.3488 .2552 .4201 .1649
1.6460 .0025
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.2903 .2272 .3630 .1358
1.5974 .0019
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
B6 14.2100
9.2421 .4395 .2107 .6134
B7 14.3000
8.8040 .4561 .2287 .6044
B8 14.3850
9.0118 .4006 .1737 .6301
B9 14.3550
9.0140 .4197 .1898 .6211
B10 14.3500
8.9724 .4049 .1651 .6281
Reliability Coefficients 5 items
Alpha = .6705 Standardized item alpha = .6716
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (S B 3)
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.9900 3.8800 4.1050 .2250

33RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
1.0580 .0119
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
1.1260 .9085 1.2720 .3634
1.4000 .0213
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.3420 .2227 .4683 .2457
2.1034 .0066
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.3026 .2094 .4049 .1955
1.9333 .0034
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
B11 15.8450
9.4281 .3644 .1463 .6656
B12 15.8500
8.6005 .4594 .2280 .6272
B13 15.9750
8.5371 .4512 .2098 .6305
B14 16.0700
8.2463 .4557 .2143 .6287
B15 16.0600
8.2275 .4686 .2476 .6226
Reliability Coefficients 5 items
Alpha = .6856 Standardized item alpha = .6845
_
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (B)

34RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
N of Cases = 200.0
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
3.8137 3.5150 4.1050 .5900
1.1679 .0372
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
1.1546 .9085 1.2839 .3754
1.4132 .0113
Inter-item
Covariances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.3705 .1283 .6135 .4852
4.7818 .0068
Inter-item
Correlations Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.3212 .1208 .5493 .4285
4.5487 .0047
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared
Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if
Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation
Deleted
B1 53.2650
83.8842 .5334 .3949 .8685
B2 53.3050
82.8764 .5553 .3602 .8674
B3 53.3450
83.1919 .5677 .3730 .8669
B4 53.3650
82.3133 .5842 .5116 .8660
B5 53.3900
84.3195 .5080 .3706 .8696
B6 53.5150
84.1103 .5337 .4286 .8685
B7 53.6050
82.9638 .5450 .3366 .8679
B8 53.6900
83.8230 .4849 .3398 .8708
B9 53.6600
83.7029 .5065 .2824 .8697
B10 53.6550
83.3628 .5066 .3156 .8698
B11 53.1000

35RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
86.2613 .4495 .2955 .8720
B12 53.1050
83.3708 .5641 .3670 .8671
B13 53.2300
83.7559 .5264 .3307 .8688
B14 53.3250
82.6828 .5448 .3365 .8679
B15 53.3150
83.3726 .5161 .3117 .8693
Reliability Coefficients 15 items
Alpha = .8764 Standardized item alpha = .8765
FREQUENCIES
VARIABLES=gender age mstatus annual educat exper
/ORDER= ANALYSIS .
Frequencies
Statistics
Gender Age Marital status
Annual
Income level
Educational
level: Experience
N Valid 200 200 200 200 200 200
Missin
g 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 28 14.0 14.0 14.0
Female 172 86.0 86.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 90 45.0 45.0 45.0
2 56 28.0 28.0 73.0

36RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
3 50 25.0 25.0 98.0
4 4 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Marital status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 78 39.0 39.0 39.0
2 94 47.0 47.0 86.0
3 16 8.0 8.0 94.0
4 12 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Annual Income level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 130 65.0 65.0 65.0
2 44 22.0 22.0 87.0
3 16 8.0 8.0 95.0
4 10 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Educational level:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 3 1.5 1.5 1.5
2 177 88.5 88.5 90.0
3 15 7.5 7.5 97.5
4 5 2.5 2.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 104 52.0 52.0 52.0
2 26 13.0 13.0 65.0
3 42 21.0 21.0 86.0
4 28 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
* Table of Frequencies.
TABLES
/FORMAT ZERO MISSING('.') /TABLES

37RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
( a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 + a6 + a7 + a8 + a9 + a10 + a11 + a12 + a13 + a14
+ a15 + a16 + a17 + a18 + a19 + a20 + a21 + a22 + a23 + a24 + a25 + a26 + a27
+ a28 + a29 + a30 ) BY
(LABELS) > (STATISTICS)
/STATISTICS COUNT ((F5.0) 'Count' )
CPCT ((F7.1) '%' ) .
Tables
SD D N A SA
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count
a1 8 4.0 25 12.5 59 29.5 54 27.0 54
a2 4 2.0 11 5.5 71 35.5 61 30.5 53
a3 10 5.0 11 5.5 60 30.0 58 29.0 61
a4 11 5.5 5 2.5 59 29.5 58 29.0 67
a5 8 4.0 7 3.5 41 20.5 79 39.5 65
a6 6 3.0 11 5.5 68 34.0 61 30.5 54
a7 10 5.0 6 3.0 71 35.5 61 30.5 52
a8 3 1.5 7 3.5 72 36.0 63 31.5 55
a9 3 1.5 12 6.0 60 30.0 68 34.0 57
a10 5 2.5 11 5.5 58 29.0 68 34.0 58
a11 7 3.5 9 4.5 63 31.5 67 33.5 54
a12 1 .5 8 4.0 59 29.5 89 44.5 43
a13 7 3.5 5 2.5 59 29.5 82 41.0 47
a14 4 2.0 5 2.5 56 28.0 84 42.0 51
a15 4 2.0 5 2.5 66 33.0 79 39.5 46
a16 7 3.5 3 1.5 66 33.0 79 39.5 45
a17 7 3.5 2 1.0 63 31.5 81 40.5 47
a18 5 2.5 4 2.0 70 35.0 72 36.0 49
a19 7 3.5 8 4.0 68 34.0 69 34.5 48
a20 5 2.5 10 5.0 66 33.0 70 35.0 49
a21 8 4.0 10 5.0 47 23.5 51 25.5 84
a22 5 2.5 8 4.0 49 24.5 48 24.0 90
a23 8 4.0 2 1.0 62 31.0 58 29.0 70
a24 8 4.0 16 8.0 60 30.0 40 20.0 76
a25 8 4.0 9 4.5 48 24.0 53 26.5 82
a26 9 4.5 16 8.0 36 18.0 52 26.0 87
a27 3 1.5 8 4.0 40 20.0 71 35.5 78
a28 7 3.5 4 2.0 47 23.5 65 32.5 77
a29 6 3.0 4 2.0 46 23.0 57 28.5 87
a30 5 2.5 12 6.0 46 23.0 59 29.5 78
* Table of Frequencies.
TABLES
/FORMAT ZERO MISSING('.') /TABLES
( b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 + b5 + b6 + b7 + b8 + b9 + b10 + b11 + b12 + b13 + b14
+ b15 ) BY
(LABELS) > (STATISTICS)

38RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
/STATISTICS COUNT ((F5.0) 'Count' )
CPCT ((F7.1) '%' ) .
Tables
SD D N A SA
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count
b1 6 3.0 11 5.5 45 22.5 65 32.5 73
b2 9 4.5 7 3.5 55 27.5 53 26.5 76
b3 7 3.5 9 4.5 56 28.0 61 30.5 67
b4 9 4.5 10 5.0 54 27.0 58 29.0 69
b5 7 3.5 8 4.0 64 32.0 57 28.5 64
b6 7 3.5 8 4.0 78 39.0 54 27.0 53
b7 11 5.5 10 5.0 81 40.5 44 22.0 54
b8 11 5.5 19 9.5 76 38.0 44 22.0 50
b9 10 5.0 17 8.5 76 38.0 48 24.0 49
b10 11 5.5 16 8.0 79 39.5 40 20.0 54
b11 4 2.0 6 3.0 39 19.5 67 33.5 84
b12 8 4.0 7 3.5 29 14.5 69 34.5 87
b13 8 4.0 12 6.0 31 15.5 75 37.5 74
b14 10 5.0 12 6.0 44 22.0 60 30.0 74
b15 11 5.5 10 5.0 40 20.0 68 34.0 71
desc a1 to b.
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
a1 200 1 5 3.60 1.129
a2 200 1 5 3.74 .978
a3 200 1 5 3.74 1.103
a4 200 1 5 3.83 1.096
a5 200 1 5 3.93 1.015
a6 200 1 5 3.73 1.016
a7 200 1 5 3.70 1.048
a8 200 1 5 3.80 .935
a9 200 1 5 3.82 .966
a10 200 1 5 3.82 .998
a11 200 1 5 3.76 1.014
a12 200 1 5 3.83 .829
a13 200 1 5 3.79 .950
a14 200 1 5 3.86 .895
a15 200 1 5 3.79 .894
a16 200 1 5 3.76 .936
a17 200 1 5 3.79 .931

39RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
a18 200 1 5 3.78 .925
a19 200 1 5 3.72 .989
a20 200 1 5 3.74 .968
a21 200 1 5 3.97 1.104
a22 200 1 5 4.05 1.041
a23 200 1 5 3.90 1.027
a24 200 1 5 3.80 1.152
a25 200 1 5 3.96 1.093
a26 200 1 5 3.96 1.160
a27 200 1 5 4.06 .941
a28 200 1 5 4.01 1.010
a29 200 1 5 4.08 1.007
a30 200 1 5 3.97 1.044
b1 200 1 5 3.94 1.040
b2 200 1 5 3.90 1.094
b3 200 1 5 3.86 1.047
b4 200 1 5 3.84 1.096
b5 200 1 5 3.82 1.042
b6 200 1 5 3.69 1.019
b7 200 1 5 3.60 1.103
b8 200 1 5 3.52 1.130
b9 200 1 5 3.55 1.102
b10 200 1 5 3.55 1.133
b11 200 1 5 4.10 .953
b12 200 1 5 4.10 1.037
b13 200 1 5 3.98 1.063
b14 200 1 5 3.88 1.128
b15 200 1 5 3.89 1.115
Performance: 200 1 5 3.77 .585
Competence 200 1 5 3.78 .545
Objectivity 200 1 5 3.97 .606
internal auditor
performance 200 1 5 3.84 .530
Nature 200 1 5 3.87 .727
Timing 200 1 5 3.58 .721
Extent 200 1 5 3.99 .706
external auditor 200 1 5 3.81 .650
Valid N (listwise) 200
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=sa1 sa2 sa3 a with sb1 sb2 sb3 b
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE .
Correlations
Correlations

40RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Nature Timing Extent
external
auditor
Performance: Pearson
Correlation .746(**) .611(**) .685(**) .752(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
Competence Pearson
Correlation .697(**) .584(**) .694(**) .727(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
Objectivity Pearson
Correlation .759(**) .661(**) .731(**) .792(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
internal auditor
performance
Pearson
Correlation .803(**) .677(**) .768(**) .828(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 200 200 200 200
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT sb1
/METHOD=ENTER sa1 sa2 sa3 .
_
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(b)
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1 Objectivity,
Competenc
e,
Performanc
e:(a)
. Enter
a All requested variables entered.
b Dependent Variable: Nature
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .806(a) .650 .645 .433
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:

41RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regressio
n 68.327 3 22.776 121.355 .000(a)
Residual 36.785 196 .188
Total 105.112 199
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:
b Dependent Variable: Nature
Coefficients(a)
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -.313 .226 -1.384 .168
Performan
ce: .419 .089 .337 4.717 .000
Competen
ce .205 .094 .154 2.181 .030
Objectivity .460 .088 .384 5.215 .000
a Dependent Variable: Nature
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT sb2
/METHOD=enter sa1 sa2 sa3 .
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(b)
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1 Objectivity,
Competenc
e,
Performanc
e:(a)
. Enter
a All requested variables entered.
b Dependent Variable: Timing
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate

42RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
1 .684(a) .467 .459 .530
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regressio
n 48.380 3 16.127 57.324 .000(a)
Residual 55.140 196 .281
Total 103.520 199
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:
b Dependent Variable: Timing
Coefficients(a)
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .083 .277 .298 .766
Performan
ce: .258 .109 .210 2.377 .018
Competen
ce .150 .115 .113 1.298 .196
Objectivity .492 .108 .414 4.559 .000
a Dependent Variable: Timing
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT sb3
/METHOD=enter sa1 sa2 sa3 .
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(b)
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1 Objectivity,
Competenc
e,
Performanc
e:(a)
. Enter
a All requested variables entered.
b Dependent Variable: Extent
Model Summary

43RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .771(a) .594 .588 .453
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regressio
n 58.955 3 19.652 95.566 .000(a)
Residual 40.305 196 .206
Total 99.260 199
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:
b Dependent Variable: Extent
Coefficients(a)
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .058 .237 .243 .808
Performan
ce: .245 .093 .203 2.634 .009
Competen
ce .324 .099 .250 3.288 .001
Objectivity .449 .092 .385 4.860 .000
a Dependent Variable: Extent
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT sb1 /METHOD=step sa1 sa2 sa3 .
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(a)
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method

44RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
1
Objectivity .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
2
Performanc
e: .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
3
Competenc
e .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
a Dependent Variable: Nature
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .759(a) .577 .575 .474
2 .801(b) .642 .638 .437
3 .806(c) .650 .645 .433
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:
c Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:, Competence
ANOVA(d)
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regressio
n 60.622 1 60.622 269.799 .000(a)
Residual 44.489 198 .225
Total 105.112 199
2 Regressio
n
67.434 2 33.717 176.291 .000(b)

45RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Residual 37.678 197 .191
Total 105.112 199
3 Regressio
n 68.327 3 22.776 121.355 .000(c)
Residual 36.785 196 .188
Total 105.112 199
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:
c Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:, Competence
d Dependent Variable: Nature
Coefficients(a)
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .250 .223 1.122 .263
Objectivity .911 .055 .759 16.426 .000
2 (Constant) -.158 .217 -.727 .468
Objectivity .545 .080 .455 6.833 .000
Performan
ce: .493 .083 .397 5.968 .000
3 (Constant) -.313 .226 -1.384 .168
Objectivity .460 .088 .384 5.215 .000
Performan
ce: .419 .089 .337 4.717 .000
Competen
ce .205 .094 .154 2.181 .030
a Dependent Variable: Nature
Excluded Variables(c)
Model Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
1 Performan
ce: .397(a) 5.968 .000 .391 .411
Competen
ce .283(a) 4.120 .000 .282 .420
2 Competen
ce .154(b) 2.181 .030 .154 .358
a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:
c Dependent Variable: Nature
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT sb2 /METHOD=step sa1 sa2 sa3 .

46RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(a)
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1
Objectivity .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
2
Performanc
e: .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
a Dependent Variable: Timing
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .661(a) .436 .433 .543
2 .680(b) .463 .457 .531
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:
ANOVA(c)
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regressio
n 45.169 1 45.169 153.269 .000(a)
Residual 58.351 198 .295
Total 103.520 199
2 Regressio
n 47.906 2 23.953 84.850 .000(b)
Residual 55.614 197 .282
Total 103.520 199
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:
c Dependent Variable: Timing

47RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
Coefficients(a)
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .454 .255 1.780 .077
Objectivity .786 .064 .661 12.380 .000
2 (Constant) .196 .263 .744 .458
Objectivity .555 .097 .466 5.719 .000
Performan
ce: .313 .100 .254 3.114 .002
a Dependent Variable: Timing
Excluded Variables(c)
Model Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
1 Performan
ce: .254(a) 3.114 .002 .217 .411
Competen
ce .193(a) 2.373 .019 .167 .420
2 Competen
ce .113(b) 1.298 .196 .092 .358
a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Objectivity, Performance:
c Dependent Variable: Timing
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT sb3 /METHOD=step sa1 sa2 sa3 .
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed(a)
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1
Objectivity .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).

48RELIANCE OF EXTERNAL AUDITING ON INTERNAL AUDITING
2
Competenc
e .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
3
Performanc
e: .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probability
-of-F-to-
enter
<= .050,
Probability
-of-F-to-
remove >=
.100).
a Dependent Variable: Extent
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .731(a) .534 .532 .483
2 .761(b) .580 .575 .460
3 .771(c) .594 .588 .453
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence
c Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:
ANOVA(d)
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regressio
n 53.052 1 53.052 227.329 .000(a)
Residual 46.208 198 .233
Total 99.260 199
2 Regressio
n 57.528 2 28.764 135.786 .000(b)
Residual 41.732 197 .212
Total 99.260 199
3 Regressio
n 58.955 3 19.652 95.566 .000(c)
Residual 40.305 196 .206
Total 99.260 199
a Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity
b Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence
c Predictors: (Constant), Objectivity, Competence, Performance:
d Dependent Variable: Extent