Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36164523›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2022

Constructing internal audit quality evaluation index: evidence from listed companies in Jiangsu province, China.

Ren Kai, Kong Yusheng, Albert Henry Ntarmah, Chen Ti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ren KaiSchool of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, PR China.
Kong YushengSchool of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, PR China.
Albert Henry NtarmahSchool of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, PR China.
Chen TiSchool of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Internal audit quality is the foundation for a company's survival and development across the world. As a result, global efforts have been made to develop a scientific and accurate evaluation index for internal audit quality. However, literature shows that existing internal audit quality evaluation indices have many flaws, such as a lack of systematic internal audit evaluation indicators, poor execution, and inability to identify priority areas. To address gaps in the literature, this study intended to construct an internal audit quality evaluation index utilizing the joint approaches of the Balanced Scorecard, Delphi Process, and Analytical Hierarchy Process. A systematic literature review, examination of companies' internal audit guidelines, Balanced Scorecard, and Delphi approaches resulted in a multilevel internal audit quality evaluation index with five dimensions (stakeholder satisfaction, stakeholder contribution, financial results, internal audit process, and learning and growth) and 36 indicators. The Analytical Hierarchy Process revealed that the most prioritized dimension is the internal audit process. The consistency ratio and evaluation feedback from the listed companies' internal auditors, management, and audit committee members revealed that the results are valid and reliable.

Indexed as

Analytical hierarchy processBalanced scorecardChinaDelphi methodInternal audit quality evaluation indexJiangsu provinceSystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID36164523
PMCPMC9508423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.