The effect that I have seen was a twofold approach. Our external auditors began using these new techniques last year. This first test was a multipage questionnaire for bank management to complete. It asks a multitude of questions regarding risk exposures and if you believe your institution is suceptible to any of them. (Basically it would be a self incriminating report and I feel it is not much of any use except maybe in a large institution.)
Next, the head of the audit team came in and closed the door and did the good ol' "So how are things going really? Do you have any concerns about management or the board? Etc.." This approach allows the bank's auditor to verbally express any concerns they may have about issues that they have dealt with or seen that maybe management decided not to address - but again, self increminating. I know that due to the Sarbanes Oxley and in reacting to all the corporate scandal they felt like they had to try new methodologies, but unless someone REALLY feels like something unethical or illegal is going on in their institution and are willing to forego their job, I don't see this as providing much more insight than they had before.
I think the key is to do more testwork. That is where you find problems.