did not prevent similarly invalid tests for seven factors ranked 1 through 5: skills in human relations and in oral and written communication, operational audits, athletics, enrollment services, finance and administration, audit risk assessment, and consulting/ advisory requests. Tests for the other 13 factors ranked 1 through 5 produced no statistically significant results.
Ranked 1/not ranked 1. Tests of the dichotomous measuring achievement
results that were not of questionable validity. Both expertise in accounting and skills in human relations and in oral and written communication ranked 1 or not ranked 1 had statistically significant results here that were of questionable validity because of Yates’s continuity correction. Descriptive statistics showed that 22% of respondents who saw measuring achievement distinct ranked expertise in accounting most important, while 10% of respondents who saw it businesslike did. Forty-six percent of those who saw measuring achievement businesslike ranked skills in human relations and in oral and written communication most important, compared to 28% of respondents with a distinct measuring achievement view.
That expertise in accounting was more valued when measuring achievement was viewed distinct might have been due to the perceived value of accounting expertise for measuring achievement in uncommon situations. That skills in human relations and in oral and written communication were more valued when measuring achievement was viewed businesslike might have arisen from a belief that such skills would be helpful in obtaining and relating businesslike mission achievement data and information within and among university units. Tests of the dichotomous measuring achievement variable and factors ranked 1 or 2 or not ranked 1 or 2 yielded no statistically significant results.
Hypothesis test conclusions. Because statistically significant results for expertise
in accounting and skills in human relations and in oral and written communication were of questionable validity, I was unable to reject the null hypothesis that internal audit directors’ views of measuring achievement difference and their rankings of the relative importance of internal auditor attributes were unrelated. I also accepted null hypotheses that directors’ views of measuring achievement difference and their rankings for types of
internal auditing work, subject areas of internal auditing work, and determinants of the types and subject areas of internal auditing work, respectively, were not related.
Operational Audits in Mission Areas
My next three primary null hypotheses were that internal audit directors’ views of the extent of difference between measuring achievement of their respective institutions’ missions and measuring achievement of a business’s objectives were unrelated to their level of agreement or disagreement with the appropriateness at their respective
institutions of operational audits that address accomplishment of research missions and goals, teaching missions and goals, and public service missions and goals, respectively. Chi-square tests of independence of the four-category measuring achievement difference variable and the research and public service operational audit variables with four levels of agreement or disagreement were not valid because in each instance, over 25% of the contingency table’s cells had an expected frequency less than five. Results for the test with the teaching operational audit variable were not statistically significant.
Therefore, I conducted additional chi-square tests of independence using the dichotomous measuring achievement variable and three constructs of the operational audit variables: first with the four levels of agreement or disagreement, then with two categories of agree and disagree, and last with three categories of strongly agree, mildly agree or disagree, and strongly disagree. Table 29 shows results that were statistically significant. Table 30 displays differences in levels of agreement or disagreement by businesslike and distinct measuring achievement groups.
Four levels of agreement or disagreement. As indicated in Table 29, tests of the
Table 29
Independence of Views of Measuring Achievement Difference (Dichotomous Categories) and Appropriateness of Operational Audits in Mission Areas
Chi-square tests of independence results
Agreement/disagreement levels for appropriateness of operational
audits in mission areas df n χ2 p Cramer’s V Effect
Strongly agree/mildly agree/mildly disagree/strongly disagree
Teaching 3 144 10.215 .017* .266 Small
Public service 3 144 9.316 .025* .254 Small
Agree/disagree
Research 1 143 4.783 .029* .183 Small
Teaching 1 144 7.749 .005* .232 Small
Public service 1 144 7.749 .005* .232 Small
Strongly agree/mildly agree or disagree/strongly disagree
Teaching 2 144 8.193 .017* .239 Small
Public service 2 144 6.472 .039* .212 Small
*
Table 30
Levels of Agreement or Disagreement as to Appropriateness of Operational Audits in Mission Areas by Businesslike and Distinct Measuring Achievement Groups
Levels of agreement or disagreement as to appropriateness of operational audits
Agree Disagree
Mission area by measuring
achievement group Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Total
Percentage of respondents Research Businesslike 48% 32% 12% 8% 100% Distinct 28% 36% 26% 10% 100% Teaching Businesslike 20% 48% 23% 9% 100% Distinct 12% 33% 29% 25% 99%a Public Service Businesslike 24% 45% 24% 8% 101%a Distinct 10% 35% 37% 18% 100%
Note. The dichotomous measuring achievement group labels of businesslike and distinct categorize
respondents based on their choices for the measuring achievement difference questionnaire item. The labels are from the institution’s perspective: measuring achievement of its missions.
levels of agreement or disagreement yielded statistically significant results only for teaching and public service. Effect sizes were small. As Table 30 shows, 20% of the businesslike group strongly agreed and 48% mildly agreed that operational audits of teaching missions and goals were appropriate, while 12% and 33%, respectively, of the distinct group did. Moreover, strong disagreement was more often expressed by those in the distinct group, with 25% taking that position, compared to 9% for the businesslike group.
As Table 30 also shows, 24% of the businesslike group strongly agreed and 45% mildly agreed that such audits of public service were appropriate, while 10% and 35%, respectively, of the distinct group did. Here again, strong disagreement was more often expressed by those in the distinct group, with 18% taking that position, compared to 8% for the businesslike group. Despite no statistically significant result for operational audits of research missions and goals, 48% of the businesslike group strongly agreed that such audits were appropriate, while 28% of the distinct group did. Little strong disagreement was expressed by the two groups, with 8% and 10%, respectively, taking that position.
In summary, for all three mission areas, respondents who viewed measuring achievement businesslike more often found operational audits appropriate than did respondents who viewed measuring achievement distinct. As chi-square testing confirmed, differences between the two measuring achievement groups were more pronounced than were the differences between the two culture groups. The majority of respondents holding a distinct measuring achievement view—about 55%—considered operational audits of teaching and of public service missions and goals inappropriate.
Agreement versus disagreement and strength of views. As also indicated in
Table 29, tests of the dichotomous measuring achievement variable and operational audits variables with two categories of agree and disagree produced statistically significant results for all three mission areas, all with a small effect size. Tests of the dichotomous measuring achievement variable and operational audits variables with three categories of strongly agree, mildly agree or disagree, and strongly disagree yielded no statistically significant result for research. For teaching and public service, results were statistically significant with a small effect size.
For teaching, the difference between the two measuring achievement groups in percentages mildly agreeing or disagreeing was 9 percentage points, with the businesslike group at 71% and the distinct group at 62%. For public service, the difference was 3 points, with the distinct group at 72% and the businesslike group at 69%. Strength of opinion was thus somewhat similar between the two groups in this respect.
For research, however, the difference between the two groups in percentages mildly agreeing or disagreeing was 18 percentage points, with the distinct group at 62% and the businesslike group at 44%. The businesslike group thus had stronger viewpoints on the appropriateness of operational audits of research, and that viewpoint was
predominantly strongly agree, a view that 48% of those group members held.
Hypothesis test conclusions. I rejected the null hypotheses that internal audit
directors’ views of measuring achievement difference and their levels of agreement or disagreement with the appropriateness at their respective institutions of operational audits that address the accomplishment of research missions and goals, teaching missions and
goals, and public service missions and goals were unrelated. I concluded that they were related for all three mission areas.
Primary Null Hypotheses – Internal Auditing Factors
For the primary null hypotheses above involving views of culture and measuring achievement differences, some chi-square test results that were statistically significant but of questionable validity were noted, described, and briefly discussed, albeit none were used to reject a null hypothesis. These results related to the study’s overarching research question introduced in Chapter 1 and had descriptive or comparative value within that context.
However, for the additional primary null hypotheses addressed next, chi-square test results are presented and discussed only if they were statistically significant and not of questionable validity. Commentary and implications for these additional primary null hypotheses will be deferred to Chapter 5 as part of the summary discussion for this research study.
Rankings of Internal Auditing Factors
My next primary null hypotheses were that internal audit directors’ rankings of internal auditor attributes and types, subject areas, and determinants of internal auditing work were unrelated to each other. Chi-square tests of independence were performed of each of the 20 five-category (ranked 1 through 5) internal auditing factors (a) with each of the 15 factors in the three factor groups of five outside of its own factor group (that is, no factor was tested with a factor in its own factor group of attributes, types, subject areas, or determinants) in five categories and (b) with each of those factors in two dichotomous ranked categories: ranked 1/not ranked 1 and ranked 1 or 2/not ranked 1 or
2. In addition, chi-square tests were performed of each of the 20 factors in each of the two dichotomous ranked categories with each of the 15 factors outside of its factor group in each of the two dichotomous ranked categories.
Tables 31 and 32 show the 11 chi-square test results that indicated a statistically significant relationship. All 11 involved an internal auditor attribute, five with a type of internal auditing work (Table 31) and six with a subject area of internal auditing work (Table 32). The following narrative addresses results by attribute.
Accounting expertise. Thirty-four percent of respondents who ranked expertise
in accounting 1 or 2 ranked financial audits 1 or 2, while 14% of respondent who did not rank expertise in accounting 1 or 2 ranked financial audits 1 or 2 (Table 31). Ninety percent of respondents who ranked expertise in accounting 1 ranked the subject area of finance and administration first in importance, while 62% of respondents who did not rank expertise in accounting 1 did so (Table 32). Seventy-five percent of respondents who did not rank expertise in accounting 1 or 2 ranked the subject area of sponsored research first or second, while 53% of respondents who ranked expertise in accounting 1 or 2 ranked sponsored research first or second (Table 32). All effect sizes were small.
Culture and missions awareness. Twenty-nine percent of respondents who
ranked awareness of higher education culture and missions 1 ranked IT audits 1 or 2, while 13% of respondents who did not rank awareness of higher education culture and missions 1 ranked IT audits 1 or 2 (Table 31). Eighty-three percent of respondents who did not rank awareness of higher education culture and missions 1 ranked operational audits 1 or 2, while 61% of respondents who ranked awareness of higher education culture and missions 1 ranked operational audits 1 or 2 (Table 31).
Table 31
Rankings of Internal Auditor Attributes Related to Rankings of Types of Internal Auditing Work
Chi-square tests of independence results
Internal auditor attributes
(ranking) df n χ2 p Cramer’s V Effect
Types of internal auditing work (ranking)
Financial audits (1 or 2/not 1 or 2)
Accounting expertise (1 or 2/ not 1 or 2) 1 142 7.128 .008* .224 Small Human relations/ communication skills (1 or 2/ not 1 or 2) 1 142 15.923 .000* .335 Medium IT audits (1 or 2/not 1 or 2)
Culture and missions
awareness (1/not 1) 1 142 5.360 .021* .194 Small
Operational audits (1 or 2/not 1 or 2)
Culture and missions
awareness (1/not 1) 1 142 7.665 .006* .232 Small
Human relations/
communication skills (1/not 1) 1 142 13.430 .000* .308 Medium
Note. Rankings were tested using dichotomous categories as indicated. Accounting expertise = Expertise in
accounting; Human relations/communication skills = Skills in human relations and in oral and written communication; Culture and missions awareness = Awareness of higher education culture and missions; IT = Information technology.
*
Table 32
Rankings of Internal Auditor Attributes Related to Rankings of Subject Areas of Internal Auditing Work
Chi-square tests of independence results
Internal auditor attributes
(ranking) df n χ2 p Cramer’s V Effect
Types of internal auditing work (ranking)
Academic operations (1 thru 5) Management/business expertise (1 or 2/not 1 or 2) 4 142 11.142 .025* .280 Small (1 or 2/not 1 or 2) Management/business expertise (1 or 2/not 1 or 2) 1 142 5.124 .024* .190 Small
Finance and administration (1/not 1)
Culture and missions
awareness (1 thru 5) 4 142 10.979 .027* .278 Small
Culture and missions
awareness (1/not 1) 1 142 6.083 .014* .207 Small
Accounting expertise (1/not 1) 1 142 5.894 .015* .204 Small
Sponsored research (1 or 2/not 1 or 2)
Accounting expertise (1 or 2/
not 1 or 2) 1 142 5.387 .020* .195 Small
Note. Rankings were tested using five categories and dichotomous categories as indicated. Management/
business expertise = Expertise in management and business subjects; Culture and missions awareness = Awareness of higher education culture and missions.
*
Eighty-three percent of respondents who did not rank awareness of higher education culture and missions 1, 2, or 3 (based on the ranked 1 thru 5 test) ranked finance and administration first in importance, while 60% of respondents who ranked awareness of higher education culture and missions 1, 2, or 3 ranked finance and administration first (Table 32). Likewise, 72% of respondents who did not rank awareness of higher education culture and missions first ranked the subject area of finance and administration first, while 50% of respondents who ranked awareness of higher education culture and missions first ranked finance and administration first (Table 32). All effect sizes were small.
Human relations/communication skills. Forty-three percent of respondents who
did not rank skills in human relations and in oral and written communication 1 or 2 ranked financial audits first or second, while 12% of respondents who ranked skills in human relations and in oral and written communication 1 or 2 ranked those types of audits first or second (Table 31). By contrast, 93% of respondents who ranked skills in human relations and in oral and written communication first in importance ranked
operational audits first or second in importance, while 66% of respondents who did not so rank skills in human relations and in oral and written communication ranked operational audits first or second (Table 31). Effect sizes were medium.
Management/business expertise. Sixty-six percent of respondents who ranked
expertise in management and business subjects first or second in importance ranked the subject area of academic operations 1, 2, or 3 (based on a ranked 1 thru 5 test), while 38% of respondents who did not rank expertise in management and business subjects first or second in importance ranked that area 1, 2, or 3 (Table 32). Likewise, 30% of
respondents who ranked expertise in management and business subjects first or second in importance ranked the subject area of academic operations first or second also, while 14% of respondents who did not rank expertise in management and business subjects first or second ranked academic operations first or second in importance (Table 32). Effect sizes were small.
Hypothesis test conclusions. As a result of these tests, I rejected the null
hypotheses that internal audit directors’ rankings of the relative importance of internal auditor attributes were not related to their rankings of types and subject areas of internal auditing work. I accepted the null hypotheses that directors’ rankings of the relative importance of internal auditor attributes were not related to their rankings of
determinants of internal auditing work. I also accepted the null hypotheses that directors’ rankings of the relative importance of determinants were not related to their rankings of types and subject areas of internal auditing work, and that their rankings of types of internal auditing work were not related to their rankings of subject areas of internal auditing work.
Operational Audits in Mission Areas
My last primary null hypotheses were that internal audit directors’ rankings of internal auditor attributes and types, subject areas, and determinants of internal auditing work were unrelated to their level of agreement or disagreement with the appropriateness at their respective institutions of operational audits that address accomplishment of research missions and goals, teaching missions and goals, and public service missions and goals, respectively.
Chi-square tests of independence were performed of each of the 20 five-category (ranked 1 through 5) internal auditing factors with the three constructs of the operational audit variables: first with the four levels of agreement or disagreement, then with two categories of agree and disagree, and last with three categories of strongly agree, mildly agree or disagree, and strongly disagree. In addition, chi-square tests were performed of each of the 20 factors in each of the two dichotomous ranked categories with the three constructs of the operational audit variables.
Table 33 shows the seven chi-square test results that indicated a statistically significant relationship. Two of the seven involved the internal auditor attribute of awareness of higher education culture and missions and operational audits of research. The other five involved that attribute and three types of internal auditing work— investigations, compliance audits, and operational audits—and operational audits of teaching.
Culture and missions awareness. Of respondents who ranked awareness of
higher education culture and missions first or second, 55% strongly agreed, 27% mildly agreed, 10% mildly disagreed, and 8% strongly disagreed that operational audits of research were appropriate. By contrast, of those who did not rank awareness of higher education culture and missions first or second, 26% strongly agreed, 41% mildly agreed, 24% mildly disagreed, and 9% strongly disagreed such audits were appropriate. Strength of opinion percentages were thus 55% strongly agreed, 37% mildly agreed or disagreed, and 8% strongly disagreed, and 26% strongly agreed, 66% mildly agreed or disagreed, and 9% strongly disagreed, respectively, for the two groups. Effect sizes were medium.
Table 33
Rankings of Internal Auditor Attributes and Types of Internal Auditing Work Related to Views of the Appropriateness of Operational Audits of Research and Teaching
Chi-square tests of independence results
Internal auditor attribute or type of internal auditing work
(ranking) df n χ2 p Cramer’s V Effect
Appropriateness of operational audits of research missions/goals Strongly agree/mildly agree/mildly disagree/strongly disagree Culture and missions
awareness (1 or 2/not 1 or 2) 3 141 13.980 .003* .315 Medium
Strongly agree/mildly agree or disagree/strongly disagree Culture and missions
awareness (1 or 2/not 1 or 2) 3 141 13.286 .001* .307 Medium
Appropriateness of operational audits of teaching missions/goals Strongly agree/mildly agree/mildly disagree/strongly disagree Culture and missions
awareness (1/not 1) 3 142 11.120 .011* .280 Small
Agree/disagree
Investigations (1 thru 5) 4 142 11.391 .023* .283 Small
Compliance audits (1/not 1) 1 142 4.889 .027* .186 Small
Operational audits (1 or 2/
not 1 or 2) 1 144 6.890 .009* .219 Small
Appropriateness of operational audits of teaching missions/goals Strongly agree/mildly agree or disagree/strongly disagree Culture and missions
awareness (1/not 1) 2 142 10.361 .006* .270 Small
Note. Rankings were tested using dichotomous categories and five categories as indicated. Appropriateness
of operational audits was tested using four categories, three categories, and two categories as indicated. Culture and missions awareness = Awareness of higher education culture and missions.
*
Of respondents who ranked awareness of higher education culture and missions first in importance, 34% strongly agreed, 32% mildly agreed, 26% mildly disagreed, and 8% strongly disagreed that operational audits of teaching were appropriate. By contrast, of those who did not rank awareness of higher education culture and missions first, 12%