Extrinsic Factors Influencing Internal Auditors’ Effectiveness in Jordanian Public Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the extrinsic factors, namely, top management support, complexity, independence, and internal audit department’s size that are out of internal auditors' control affecting their effectiveness in the Jordanian public sector. The current study also tries to improve understanding of the extrinsic factors affecting internal auditors’ ability to achieve the assigned goals in order to highlight internal auditors’ effectiveness. Resource-based and agency theories were used in developing the research model. Two sets of questionnaires were distributed among the financial managers and internal audit managers. The results reveal that top management support, independence, and the size of internal audit department play a significant and positive role on the effectiveness of internal auditors, whereas complexity of the task has been found to make a negative impact on the level of their performance. Given the significance of the public sector within the Jordanian economy, the findings are valuable for the internal audit function, regulators, and decision-makers in proposing new legislation and regulations of an internal audit function. Future studies may look into other factors that may restrict internal audit performance, such as organizational culture and pay satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".