Reliability of Evidence in Auditing

The practitioner in an assurance engagement should plan and perform the engagement with an attitude of professional skepticism.

Criteria for measuring time in hours and minutes is an example of criteria that may be available only to specific intended users.

When identified criteria are available only to specific intended users, the use of the assurance report is not restricted to those users or that purpose.

Materiality is not a consideration when planning and performing an assurance engagement.

The quantity and quality of available evidence is not considered when determining the nature, timing, and extent of evidence-gathering procedures in an assurance engagement.

Professional skepticism is not necessary when performing an assurance engagement as it can hinder the process.

Assurance engagement risk is not a factor that should be considered when planning and performing an assurance engagement.

The practitioner should not consider the nature of evidence-gathering procedures when planning an assurance engagement.

Corroborating information is not important for verifying the accuracy and reliability of subject matter information in an assurance engagement.

Using professional skepticism may help practitioners identify circumstances that could lead to material misstatements in the subject matter information.

In a limited assurance engagement, procedures are deliberately limited relative to a reasonable assurance engagement.

The Philippine Framework for Assurance Engagements was adopted in the Philippines on September 27, 2004, by the members of the Auditing Standards and Practices Council.

In an assurance engagement, the practitioner's conclusion is always expressed in a positive form.

Sufficient appropriate evidence is obtained only in reasonable assurance engagements, not in limited assurance engagements.

Professional skepticism is not necessary when performing limited assurance engagements.