Audit Expectations Gap: Testing the Empirical Evidence from Jordan
using Two Levels of Stakeholders
NADIA AHMAD ALKHATEEB1, NAJIB SHRYDEH2, SULEIMAN JAMAL MOHAMMAD2,
OMAR ALI KANAAN3
1Business Administration Department, Colorado State University – Global, Aurora, USA
2Accounting Department, Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT), Amman, JORDAN
3Department of Business Administration, Applied Science Private University, Amman, JORDAN
Abstract: - The main objective of this study is to empirically test the existence of an audit expectations gap in
the case of Jordan. The study aims to identify whether the audit expectations gap exists between auditors and
investors, and between auditors and financial managers, or not. The research data were collected from 62
respondents using a structured questionnaire before being analyzed using SPSS-26. The study findings revealed
that a significant audit expectations gap does exist between auditors and investors, and between auditors and
financial managers. The results also show that the gap between auditors and financial managers is relatively
small compared to the gap between auditors and investors. The study explores the reasons behind the audit
expectations gap and suggests possible solutions to overcoming it.
Key-Words: - Audit expectations; Audit expectations gap; Auditor’s responsibilities; Fraud; Management’s
responsibilities.
Received: May 22, 2022. Revised: December 14, 2022. Accepted: January 14, 2023. Published: February 17, 2023.
1 Introduction
Building trust between the stakeholders of the
organization requires building proper expectations
of work performance from everyone within the
organization. If these expectations do not line up,
then there is an expectation gap that occurs between
the stakeholders. Part of the institution is the audit
expectation of the audit jobs. Both parties, the
auditor and auditee, perform their jobs based on
specific disclosed and undisclosed requirements and
expectations. If these are not in alignment, then the
audit expectation gap occurs. In 1975, the first
occurrence and definition of the audit expectation
gap (AEG) was presented by showing there is a
factor between the performances of auditors that is
present between independent accountants and the
users of the financial statements, [1]. Based on this
definition, the auditees expect auditors’
responsibilities much more outcomes and assurance
than what the auditors are expected to perform.
Even with the length of existence of the term audit
expectation gap, the researchers do not agree on the
clear definition of the audit expectation gap where
there are identification inconsistencies in the
definition of stakeholders when it comes to
formulating the audit expectation gaps, [2]. For
example, researchers included the public as part of
the definition of the audit expectations gap, [3], [4],
others included the law as part of the stakeholders,
[5], [6], and finally, researchers included society in
the definition, [7].
In [7] the author’s inclusion of society in the
AEG, allowed for a more comprehensive review of
the interaction between the society they function in
and the financial institutions. This inclusion allowed
more thorough investigation of the topic to include
various stakeholders in evaluating the AEG.
Furthermore, the AEG was structured into two
different gap classifications. First, there is a gap
between the expectations of society towards
auditors on achieving the reasonableness of task
accomplishment, which is termed the
reasonableness gap. This measures the gap between
what the expectations of the public from the
auditors to achieve and what the auditors can
reasonably expect to achieve. Second, the AEG
between society and auditors based on what the
public can reasonably expect from auditors to
accomplish and what auditors are perceived to
achieve, which is named the performance gap. The
performance gap is then divided into two different
types, namely the deficient standard and the
deficient performance. The deficient standard is the
gap between the reasonable expectations of auditors
and their current duties based on what is mandated
and required by the laws and regulations. On the
other hand, the deficient performance is the gap
between expected performances of auditors
compared to the perceived performance of the
public. There are several research that support the
existence of the AEG as a current issue in the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
428
Volume 20, 2023
financial market and performance expectations, [8],
[9], [10].
This disagreement in the identification of the
stakeholders would mean any measurement of the
gap will give different outcomes, depending on who
is included in the study. With this disagreement on
who should be the stakeholders involved in the
AEG, there is a need to develop a better
understanding of how deeply the AEG would
influence the outcomes and meaningfulness of the
AEG estimation. Knowing how to address the AEG
allows for building more secure financial markets
where both institutional organizations and external
investors can interact for more efficient markets.
The aim of this research is to investigate the
extension of the audit expectation gap by measuring
the audit expectation gap between more than two
levels of stakeholders in the Jordanian market. This
leads to developing the first research question: is
there an audit expectations gap (AEG) between
investors and auditors in the financial market in
Jordan?
Second, while there is evidence to support the
existence of the AEG between the auditor and
auditee, [11], [7], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],
[18], [19], the comparative study between level one
(investor-auditor) and level two (auditor-auditee)
allows to further understand how deeply the AEG is
integrated in society’s perception and expectations.
The second research question shows whether an
AEG between the auditor and their clients does
exist.
2 Literature Review
Since the 18th century, government regulations
have imposed mandatory procedures for the
disclosure of financial statements of companies
represented by subjecting them to thorough review
by independent and qualified individuals who give
assurance for their integrity and accuracy, [20].
Although these measures are mandatory, the world
is still facing economic setbacks and the collapse of
some major international companies, which has
caused the users of financial statements to lose
confidence in the auditors and the auditing
profession, [21]. Many researchers attributed these
failures to the AEG, as users of financial statements
expect auditors to provide them with completely
accurate information, ignoring the limited
responsibilities of the auditor and the objectives of
the profession itself, thus, deepening the AEG, [22],
[23].
While the origination of the AEG definition started
in 1975, and because of the development of the
financial markets, later definitions were developed
to increase the focus on the users of financial
statements realizing what the responsibilities of
auditors are, compared to what they believe their
responsibilities entail, [24]. In [25] the authors
describe AEG as the ignorance gap, referring to
society's sparse awareness of the role of the auditor
and the general foundations of the auditing
profession. In [26] the author expresses the AEG as
the discrepancy between the needs and expectations
of the users of the financial statements and what the
auditor can and should reasonably do. According to
this definition, the AEG is a performance gap,
where users of financial statements expect auditors
to go beyond the specific tasks and duties of the
auditing profession.
The AEG emerges when auditors and their
audience build divergent beliefs regarding
obligations and responsibilities in detecting fraud
and providing quality reports, [27]. The authors in
[28] distinguish between the reasonable and
unreasonable gap in audit expectations, where the
reasonable gap arises from the reasonable
expectations of the audience about the actual level
of performance according to the standard described
in the current regulations and its amendments. An
unreasonable gap is the result of the audience
holding unreasonable expectations in their minds
about what the auditor can do. Hence, the second
type was considered, the unreasonable gap, as the
failure of the audience to develop expectations
commensurate with the reality and scope of the
audit, where perceived expectations and beliefs
exceeded what the reports should provide according
to the professional reality of auditing.
In developing countries, the development of
efficient and attractive financial markets remains a
priority for economic growth and attracting foreign
direct investment. This means, investors
domestically and internationally must have trust in
the financial statements and associated reports to
make the investment decisions in the developing
economies. Having an existing AEG must be
addressed for all financial statement users if it
existed. The authors in [29] conducted a study to
show the factors leading to the widening of the
AEG in Jordan. The results showed that the
fundamental reason for the AEG is the lack of
sufficient awareness among the users of the
financial statements of the controls of the audit
profession, as well as the uncertainty of the
independence of the auditors, according to the
opinion of the users, which reduces the impartiality
of the audit reports. Some researchers believe that
the AEG appears because of the time delay in the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
429
Volume 20, 2023
development of the auditing profession which did
not keep pace with the dynamic business
environment, [30], [31]. While other researchers
argued that the AEG results from the decline in few
laws and minimum government regulations
combined with self-regulation of the profession, as
those procedures must be reviewed to ensure that
the audit reports contain the requirements of the
beneficiaries, [32], [33]. Accordingly, the factors
behind the emergence of the AEG can be
categorized into internal and external factors. The
internal factors are related to the standard practices
of auditing and the development of these standards
and procedures used to reach impartial and high-
quality reports. As for the external factors, they are
represented by the audience's perception of the
appropriate level of the auditor's performance and
his commitment to the practices recommended by
the organizing committees of the profession.
In the context of searching for solutions to the
AEG, [2] explained that reducing the gap depends
on expanding the audit report, providing appropriate
education, enhancing the independence of the
auditor, and following modern auditing
methodologies. These solutions are widely
supported as they address most of the issues that
give rise to the AEG, [34], [10], [35]. Moreover,
other authors recommended searching for new
solutions that could limit the problem of the AEG,
including beneficiary auditor reports, [36], change
management, [37], audit education, [31], accounting
education, [38], improving the output of audit
reports, [39], enhancing quality control over reports,
[40], fraud disclosure, [41], and increasing the
awareness of financial statement users, [26].
Jordan is deemed a developing country with a
relatively small market dominated by privately held
companies which mainly consist of family-owned
businesses. This type of ownership structure leads to
a low-quality audit demand. Moreover, it eliminates
the conflict between managers and owners
according to agency theory. The structure of the
Jordanian market leads to high competition in the
market, along with low audit quality, [42].
However, the AEG has emerged in Jordan in the last
decade because of different factors, including the
power of shareholding companies in the market, the
privatization of large public sector organizations,
and modernization of audit legislation, [29].
Moreover, another reason behind this emergence is
the increasing expectations from auditors in Jordan,
[43].
In Jordan, the auditing profession shows a gap in
external auditor performance between auditors and
users, [44]. Furthermore, the auditors of Jordan are
concerned about this gap due to the scandal of
Magnesia Company, the failures of Petra Bank, and
the collapse of many companies [45]. In [46] the
authors explain that the AEG in Jordan has mainly
affected the independence of the external auditors
and caused dissimilarities between the investors and
auditors’ perceptions about the importance of the
qualitative characteristic differences of accounting
information available. While many studies have
been conducted in different countries to test the
existence of the AEG, the studies conducted on this
topic in Jordan are few and relatively old. Many
studies on this topic emphasized that there is an
expectation gap related to auditors’ responsibilities
in different countries, [7], [8], [30], [36], [35], [24].
This research is focused on showing the existence of
an auditing expectation gap relating to fraud
detection responsibility between auditors and
investors or between auditors and financial
managers. The literature for highlighting the actual
existence is discussed below.
2.1 Expectation Gap between Auditors and
Investors
The causes of the AEG are mainly connected to
deficient and minimum standards, the unreasonable
expectations of society about the auditors and
perceived substandard performance they do, this
varies in different magnitudes from one society to
another, [7]. The gap between accountants and non-
accountants exists, especially in the way they reflect
their opinion upon the auditor’s roles and
responsibilities. This gap exists due to many factors,
such as the dominance of family-based firms, which
is indeed considered a cultural constraint, [47].
Furthermore, the authors in [11] investigate how the
independence factors influence the existence of
AEG between investors, shareholders, lenders, and
other creditors in the banking industry in Nigeria.
Their study indicates that auditors are dependent
economically on their clients. Moreover, the
competition in the audit market, the usage of non-
audit market services, and the reception of various
forms of gifts from management and prospects for
reappointment are some of the strongest reasons that
AEG exists. Hence, these factors should be
controlled by establishing central regulatory
authority, shrinking economic dependence on
clients, and emphasizing auditors' tenures, as these
factors lead to an increase in the AEG.
The authors in [22] used the partial least-
squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) to
assess the impact of the AEG on the confidence of
investors. The results indicate that the existence of
an AEG was negatively associated with the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
430
Volume 20, 2023
confidence of investors. In addition, the perceived
independence of auditors and improved level of
communication were negatively related to the AEG
but positively related to the confidence of investors.
Independence is deemed as the most essential factor
in auditing both fact and appearance, as well as
being the main way to narrow the expectation gap,
[20]. Thus, the independent audit is a significant
factor to narrow and reduce the AEG. Furthermore,
there is a positive relationship between the
fieldwork conduct and technical compliance for the
satisfaction of clients that only contributes towards
their satisfaction with the audit services rendered,
[15]. On the other hand, an insignificant relationship
exists between experience and responsiveness and
the satisfaction of Jordanian clients. The authors in
[48] studied the different internal control
components and analyzed if they affect the audit
profession in Jordan and revealed that there is a
deficiency in the way the companies deal with
technical tools. To solve this problem, employees
and auditors must undertake a training period to
ensure that they are adequately educated and
qualified, which will improve the audit quality.
Besides the improvement of audit quality, it’s
also important to locate the AEG within a cultural
context. The authors in [9] indicate that the
importance of the auditor should not be seen only as
a response to governmental requirements. The trust
that the auditor gives to the financial statement
gives the investor assurance and a clear image of
what to do. Moreover, the AEG exists in fraud
detection. All users expect auditors to detect all
fraud in a company, but auditors do not believe that
this is their responsibility, [26]. Auditors believe
that there is a general misunderstanding regarding
what users expect from them. Auditors rely heavily
on internal audits to detect fraud and not all
companies provide an effective one to help the
external auditors, [49].
Auditors have the primary responsibility to
verify whether the financial statements of an audited
organization present a true and fair view, and a
secondary responsibility to prevent and detect fraud.
Auditors do not assume full responsibility for
detecting fraudulent accounting activities in the
accounting records. These conflicting views of the
internal and external parties as to whether auditors
should assume this responsibility are behind the
emergence of the audit gap, [50]. Auditors try hard
not to assume fraud detection responsibility to
maintain their own benefits, because it’s neither
practically nor economically feasible to assume
such responsibility, [51]. The AEG between
auditors and bankers emerged due to a lack of
knowledge among bankers about the responsibilities
of auditors. A study conducted in Iran and Iraq
revealed that bankers thought that auditors should
be not only responsible for preparing financial
statements, but also for detecting fraud. However,
there were deemed to be inefficient internal control
systems in those two countries because internal
auditors there work independently of managers,
[52].
In the same context, regulations limit auditors’
responsibility for detecting fraud. Therefore, [8]
suggests that auditors must communicate more
accurately their duties to the third party to increase
awareness and narrow the expectations gap. This
third party could be the investor, as author [53]
found that investors’ expectations exceed those of
other parties regarding the auditor’s responsibilities
toward the detection of fraud. There is also a
significant gap regarding fraud definition between
auditors and investors. Therefore, this research
aimed to clarify the difference between auditors and
investors regarding the auditor’s job performance,
and whether the AEG exists. Hence, the first
hypothesis is:
H1: There is no difference between the auditor and
the investor regarding expectations of the auditor’s
job performance.
2.2 Expectation Gap between Auditors and
Financial Managers
Social and economic factors are important in
influencing the accounting/auditing profession in
Jordan, as they were the real motive for the country
to start using International Financial Reporting
Standards (IFRS), [47]. Since 1961, there has been a
succession of government interventions to regulate
the audit profession, in the form of three important
laws. The first law (1961) addressed the licensing
mechanism to enter the audit profession since
insufficient licensing was permitting under-qualified
auditors to enter the market. In Jordan, the
Jordanian Association of Certified Public
Accountants (JACPA) established the audit
profession through setting Law no. 32 of 1985. This
law stipulates that a written exam must be taken to
ensure that auditors have the necessary background
to practice auditing. A new law issued in 2003
introduced further licensing regulations with a view
to raising the quality of Jordanian auditors to reach
a worldwide level. It also gives assurances of the
reliability of financial statements presented by
publicly traded companies and companies required
to conduct the auditing practice, [54]. These laws
came into place to increase the demands of investors
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
431
Volume 20, 2023
for more reliable financial statements and enhanced
transparency in publicly traded companies.
The authors in [55] show that companies with
an enhanced control system perform better when a
systematic and controlled environment such as the
enterprise resource planning (ERP) and earning
management practices would enhance the financial
performance and outcomes. In addition, this would
lead to higher investor trust in the investment
process. Thus, there is an increased focus on gaining
the trust of investors in the market. Their results
confirm that earning management practices would
enhance the decision of investors to invest their
capital in the financial market, [56]. The authors in
[57] extend the analysis of the trust factor through
studying the appropriateness of having an efficient
decision support system for investors to extend their
investment decisions towards urban areas. This
means that companies must gain the trust of
investors on both internal and external levels.
In [58] the authors investigate whether an AEG
exists or not between the auditors and the users of
the financial statement Iran. The authors investigate
the relation of the responsibility of auditors, the
reliability of audits, the audited financial statements,
and the decision on the usefulness of the audited
financial statements. Their research concluded that,
while a minor AEG exists in relation to reliability,
in relation to responsibilities there is a significant
expectation gap, especially regarding
responsibilities related to fraud detection, internal
control reliability and preparation of financial
statements. On the other hand, there was found to be
a conciseness in the use of audit and financial
statements. The researcher attributed these high
expectations to the Islamic culture that exists in
Iran. Moreover, they suggested that the AEG could
be reduced by enhanced education and improvement
in the communication between auditors and the
users of the financial statement. Besides knowing
the ways to reduce the AEG, it’s also important to
differentiate the AEG that exists in different
countries. For this purpose, in [59] the authors
studied the differences in the audit expectation and
the audit performance gap in New Zealand and the
United Kingdom. They found that the gap emerged
and existed in both countries due to three important
reasons, including the unreasonable expectations of
auditors (reasonableness gap), the auditors not being
required to perform responsibilities that are
reasonably expected of them (performance gap-
deficient standard) and the deficient performance of
the auditors (performance gap-deficient
performance). In addition, they highlighted the fact
that the UK business environment held a more
extensive discussion of auditor’s responsibilities,
performance, and corporate problems in the media
than that seen in New Zealand, which led to a
generally higher level of awareness about the
responsibilities of auditors.
As already mentioned, the AEG exists because
non-auditors expect auditors to assume greater
responsibilities than auditors themselves perceive
they should take on. The existence of such a gap can
have harmful effects on the credibility of audited
financial statements, [45]. Thus, [60] believe that to
study the AEG, the existence of the gap in any
specific country should be tested. After that, if that
country was found to be suffering from an AEG,
possible solutions to reduce this gap should be
discussed. The most suggested solutions to reducing
the AEG include extended audit reports, extended
responsibilities, and education. These
recommendations have a common attribute that
seeks to reduce the reasonableness gap. In [53] the
author examined whether the expectation gap exists
in Iran among auditors, financial managers and
investors and revealed that financial managers and
investors have unreasonable expectations of
auditors regarding the detection of fraud. They also
believe that auditors should detect non-material
fraud, which is a view that auditors disagree with.
Therefore, this research aimed to clarify the
difference between the expectations of auditors and
financial managers regarding the auditor’s job
performance, and whether the AEG exists. Thus, it
can be hypothesized that:
H2: There is no difference between the auditor’s and
financial manager’s expectations regarding the
auditor’s job performance.
3 Research Methodology
Research design is considered a crucial matter in the
research process, as it specifies the techniques and
steps used in collecting and analyzing data that then
lead to the interpretation and reporting of achieved
results, [61]. It is important that the selected
research design follows the appropriate theoretical
and exploratory methods to address the specific
phenomenon selected by the researcher. The design
may include a range of quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches to form a precise objective
method, [62].
This research is designed in an exploratory
descriptive manner based on the quantitative
approach to achieve its ultimate purpose. The
approach enables the researcher to highlight
whether the AEG exists between auditors and
investors. Besides, it shows whether there is an
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
432
Volume 20, 2023
AEG between the auditors and their clients. To keep
investment in resources and time to a minimum, the
research used a survey to collect the data from the
respondents.
3.1 Sampling and Data Collection
The research surveys were distributed to companies
in the Jordanian market based on a random method
to avoid sample bias. Moreover, it was emphasized
that the sample should include both private and
public companies that require an audit report and
audit engagement. Hence, the one response consists
of three surveys, each of which is answered by the
company's financial manager, investor, and auditor.
The auditors participating in this survey were
chosen from four major audit firms and several
small domestic firms. Most surveys were collected
face-to-face, because when a company is selected,
their auditor and current investor must have a
survey completed as. An online survey form was
developed with the aim of collecting data from
respondents who could not be reached in person.
3.2 Measures
The instrument used in the research plays a crucial
role in maintaining the reliability and validity of the
results obtained, [63]. The survey used in this
research was adapted to serve the specific objectives
of investigating the expansion of the AEG by
measuring this gap within more than two levels of
stakeholders (financial managers and investors) in
the Jordanian market. The research relied on a scale
imported from [53] after making substantial
modifications to reflect the views relevant to the
Jordanian context. The items of this scale were
originally in English. However, they were translated
into Arabic to ensure that respondents could easily
provide accurate information. Subsequently, the
scale items were returned to English.
3.3 Analytical Strategy
The data were analyzed using the 26th version of
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) based on descriptive measures. First,
descriptive statistics related to respondents' attitudes
were extracted according to the measures of central
tendency theory, e.g., mean, median, standard
deviation). Data normality was examined using a Z-
score extracted from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Shapiro-Wilk tests. Finally, the differences between
the two groups, auditor-investor, and auditor-
financial manager, were compared using the paired
sample t-test.
4 Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
The data extracted from 62 surveys received from
companies in the Jordanian market were analyzed.
The surveys were collected between 12/5/2022 and
30/8/2022. Table 1 demonstrates the results of
descriptive indicators calculated according to the
central tendency theory.
The results shown in Table 1 indicate that, on a 10-
point Likert scale, the mean of the auditor-investors
group was 7.97 and the mean of the auditors-
financial managers group was 7.69. Hence, the
result expressed a high relative importance level of
the AEG between the members of both groups.
Moreover, the standard deviation of the auditors-
investors group was 0.88, while it reached 1.08 in
the auditors-financial managers group. Therefore,
the agreement of opinions about the AEG in the first
group is greater than in the second one, which
showed divergent opinions about this gap.
According to a probability distribution, the kurtosis
index in the auditor-investors group and the
auditors-financial managers group were respectively
2.847 and 3.516, which are less than the threshold
of 3, [64], [65]. Accordingly, the distributions in
both groups are considered as close to a normal
distribution. Besides, the results illustrate that the
Skewness values were -1.198 and -1.546,
respectively, thus the probability distribution curves
were skewed towards the right. This conclusion was
supported by the mode and median values that
exceeded the mean values in both groups.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
433
Volume 20, 2023
Table 1. Results of Descriptive Measures (n=62)
Audit Gap Expectation
Auditors – Investors
Auditors – Financial Managers
Std. Error
Statistic
Std. Error
Mean
0.11239
7.6897
0.13746
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower
7.4148
Upper
7.9646
5% Trimmed Mean
7.7785
Median
7.8300
Variance
1.172
Std. Deviation
1.08240
Minimum
3.48
Maximum
9.35
Range
5.87
Interquartile Range
0.99
Skewness
0.304
-1.546
0.304
Kurtosis
0.599
3.516
0.599
4.2 Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of
normality were conducted, [66]. The results of these
tests are listed in Table 2. The results of the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test reported in Table 2 show
that it was not statistically significant at a level less
than 0.05 for the auditors-investors group, while it
was statistically significant for the auditors-financial
managers group. However, the results demonstrated
that there are statistically significant differences in
the research groups at a significant level of less than
0.05 according to the Shapiro-Wilk test. Therefore,
the data for both groups were normally distributed,
[66].
Table 2. Results of Normality Tests (n=62)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
Auditor-Investor
0.096
62
0.200*
0.925
62
0.001
Auditor-Financial Manager
0.182
62
0.000
0.886
62
0.000
4.3 Audit Gap Expectation Differences
The paired t-test is used when there is an interest
between two different groups. Since the same
auditor for both the investors and the financial
managers were used, then the paired t-test is an
appropriate measure for this sample. Paired t-test
was conducted to evaluate the difference between
the two groups, specifically the auditor-investors
and auditors-financial managers, regarding auditors’
performance. The result of the paired t-test between
research groups is demonstrated in Table 3.
The hypotheses were examined using paired t-tests.
The results listed in Table 3 reveal that that there is
no difference between the auditor and investor
regarding expectations of the auditor’s job
performance (t=2.74, P<0.01, 95% CI= [0.196,
1.224]), which means the first null hypothesis (H1)
is rejected. Moreover, results indicate that there is
no difference between the auditor and financial
manager regarding expectations of the auditor’s job
performance (t=2.74, P<0.01, 95% CI= [0.023,
0.540]), thus, the second null hypothesis (H2) is
rejected.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
434
Volume 20, 2023
Table 3. Result of Paired t-test (n=62)
Mean
S.D.
S.E.
t
df
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
level
Lower
Upper
Auditor-Investor
0.710
2.496
0.259
2.742
61
0.007
0.196
1.224
Auditor-Financial Manager
0.280
1.070
0.129
2.175
61
0.034
0.023
0.540
The research hypotheses results are summarized in
Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of Hypotheses
Hypotheses
t-
value
p-
value
Result
H1: There is no difference
between the auditor and
investor regarding
expectations of the auditor’s
job performance
2.74
0.007
Rejected
H2: There is no difference
between the auditor and
financial manager regarding
expectations of the auditor’s
job performance
2.18
0.034
Rejected
5 Discussion and Conclusion
The aim of the research was to reveal the existence
of an AEG in Jordan at two levels of stakeholders.
Findings showed that there is an AEG at both levels,
both between auditors and investors, and between
auditors and financial managers. Furthermore, one
of the research objectives was to study the
differences in the widening of the AEG between
each of the two mentioned levels of stakeholders.
The results confirmed the existence of an AEG
between auditors and investors related to aspects of
fraud detection, the responsibility of auditors in the
event of suspected fraud, and the opportunities that
lead to the creation of a fraud environment. It is
noticeable that the scope of this gap is relatively
small as it relates to fraud detection, which is only
one aspect of auditors' responsibilities.
Consequently, this gap resulted from the investors'
lack of knowledge regarding the foundations and
responsibilities of auditing and their different
educational backgrounds.
Moreover, the results demonstrated that there is an
expectation gap between auditors and financial
managers related to the auditor's responsibilities for
detecting fraud and the opportunities that lead to
creating an environment conducive to fraud. This
result is attributed to the attempt of the financial
managers to minimize their professional
responsibilities and duties towards the company by
passing them off to the auditors. Besides, the results
emphasized that the AEG between auditors and
investors is smaller than that between auditors and
financial managers. Therefore, familiarity with audit
issues and broad knowledge of the auditor's
responsibilities leads financial managers to increase
their expectations about auditors' performance in
detecting and disclosing fraud.
The results of the research were supported by what
was previously indicated by [29] where they found
that a lack of awareness and unreasonable
expectations among users of financial statements
causes an increase in the gap between users'
expectations of financial statements and the
performance of auditors. This is compounded by a
sense of uncertainty about the auditors'
independence in Jordan. Similarly, to [43] where the
authors highlighted the expectations gap between
auditors and Jordanian investors by associating this
gap with key audit matters. The authors confirmed
that the revelation of key audit matters significantly
influenced the investors' decisions measured by the
abnormal trading volume. Moreover, findings
suggested that the mandating of key audit matters
had informational value to the investors related to
disclosing fraud.
6 Implications
This research focuses on studying the effects of the
AEG in Jordan which resulted from conflicting
perspectives of investors and financial managers on
auditing careers by highlighting the related literature
and approaches to reduce its adverse effects.
Moreover, it is an empirical study that presents a set
of recommendations based on realistic results to
avoid or minimize this gap. The research
emphasizes the need to improve stakeholders'
awareness, i.e., investors and financial managers, of
the limits and obstacles of the audit process, which
would help them to better understand this dilemma
of the AEG. This gap could be reduced by defining
the dealing approach between auditors and
stakeholders, as it determines whether any of the
party’s overestimates or underestimates the
responsibility of the other party. Thus, it spares all
parties from potential litigation resulting from
misunderstanding and lack of awareness of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
435
Volume 20, 2023
responsibilities, especially in a small market like
Jordan. The theoretical implications of the research
come from its focus specifically on the AEG on a
specific category of stakeholders, i.e., investors and
financial managers, who mainly plan for the
company's financial future. In addition, it highlights
the importance of understanding the AEG and its
consequences. Furthermore, the results of the
research could be considered as a guide for
researchers, practitioners, and reviewers, as it is an
empirical study based on a realistic analysis of the
AEG in Jordan.
7 Limitations and Recommendations
This research is a large-scale study of the AEG and
presents a range of important implications, though it
still has limitations that could be addressed in future
studies. First, this research was fully applied in the
Jordanian market, while future studies could be
conducted in other countries or focus on comparing
the AEG between countries. Secondly, auditing is
an old profession that developed over time and has
witnessed an increasing interest in recent years due
to the increased demand for accurate and reliable
financial statements. The increase in auditing
demand has resulted from theories associated with
globalization, the increase in the size of firms, the
emergence of agency theory, and the development
of regulations and corporate governance procedures.
Hence, future studies could focus on a specific
theory to highlight the AEG. Thirdly, the current
study did not address the distinction between
internal and external auditors. Therefore, it
recommends conducting more studies on the
difference in the AEG between internal and external
auditors from the perspective of the investor.
Finally, the research suggests a study of whether the
new audit standard has contributed to tightening the
screws on the AEG or not.
References:
[1] Liggo, C. D., The Expectation Gap: The
Accountant's Legal Waterloo? The CPA (pre-
1986), Vol.45, No.000007, 1975, pp. 23.
Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/docview/215224393
[2] Chye Koh, H., & Woo, E., The Expectation
Gap in Auditing. Managerial Auditing Journal,
Vol.13, No.3, 1998, pp. 147-154.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02686909810208038
[3] Jennings, M., Kneer, D. C., & Reckers, P. M.
J., The Significance of Audit Decision Aids
and Pre-case Jurists’ Attitudes on Perceptions
of Audit Firm Culpability and Liability.
Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.9,
No.2, 1993, pp. 489-507.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-
3846.1993.tb00894.x
[4] Monroe, G. S., & Woodliff, D. R., The Effect
of Education on the Audit Expectation Gap.
Accounting and Finance, Vol.33, No.1, 1993,
pp. 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
629X.1993.tb00195.x
[5] Buckless, F. A., & Peace, R. L., The Influence
of The Source of the Processional Standards on
Juror Decision Making. The Accounting
Review, Vol.68, No.10, 1993, pp. 164-175.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/248372
[6] Lowe, D. J., The Expectation Gap in the Legal
System: Perception Differences Between
Auditors and Judges. Journal of Applied
Business Research, Vol.10, No.3, 1994, pp. 39-
44. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v10i3.5922
[7] Porter, B., An Empirical Study of the Audit
Expectation-Performance Gap. Accounting and
Business Research, Vol.24, 1993, pp. 49-68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1993.972946
3
[8] Deepal, A.G., & Jayamaha, A., Audit
Expectation Gap: A Comprehensive Literature
Review. Asian Journal of Accounting
Research, Vol.7, No.3, 2022, pp. 308-319.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-10-2021-0202
[9] Olojede, P., Erin, O., Asiriuwa, O., & Usman,
M., Audit Expectation Gap: An Empirical
Analysis. Future Business Journal, Vol.6,
No.1:10, 2020, pp. 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00016-x
[10] Masoud, N., An Empirical Study of Audit
Expectation-Performance Gap: The Case of
Libya. Research in International Business and
Finance, Vol.41, 2017, pp. 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.04.012
[11] Aminu, B., Nyor, T. & Okpanachi, J.,
Stakeholders' Perception of Audit Expectations
Gap in Nigerian Deposit Money Banks. NDA
Journal of Accounting and Management,
Vol.1, No.1, 2018, pp. 102-112.
[12] Humphrey, C., Moizer, P., & Turley, S., The
Audit Expectations Gap in Britain: An
Empirical Investigation. Accounting and
Business Research, Vol.23, No.1, 1993, pp.
395-411.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1993.972990
7
[13] Köse, Y., & Erdoğan, S., The Audit
Expectations Gap in Turkey. The Journal of
Accounting and Finance, Vol.67, 2015, pp.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
436
Volume 20, 2023
193-214. Retrieved from
http://journal.mufad.org/attachments/article/80
4/12.pdf
[14] Salehi, M., & Azary, Z., Fraud Detection and
Audit Expectation Gap: Empirical Evidence
from Iranian Bankers. International Journal of
Business and Management, Vol.3, No.10,
2008, pp. 65-77.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v3n10p65
[15] Salehi, M., Mansoury, A., & Azary, Z., Audit
Independence and Expectation Gap: Empirical
Evidence from Iran. Journal of Economics and
Finance, Vol.1, No.1, 2009, pp. 166-174.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v1n1p165
[16] Chye Koh, H., The Audit Expectation Gap in
Singapore: An Empirical Study of Company
Audit Objectives. Asian Review of Accounting,
Vol.8, No.1, 2000, pp. 83-105.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060722
[17] Dixon, R., Woodhead, A. D., & Sohliman, M.,
An Investigation of the Expectation Gap in
Egypt. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol.21,
No.3, 2006, pp. 293-302.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610653026
[18] Sidani, Y. M. The Audit Expectation Gap:
Evidence from Lebanon. Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol.22, No.3, 2007, pp. 288-302.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900710733152
[19] Adeyemi, S. B., & Uadiale, O. M., An
Empirical Investigation of the Audit
Expectation Gap in Nigeria. African Journal of
Business Management, Vol.5, No.19, 2011, pp.
7964-7971.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.1671
[20] Alawi, S., Wadi, R., & Kukreja, G., The
Determinants of Audit Expectation Gap: An
Empirical Study from Kingdom of Bahrain.
Accounting and Finance Research, Vol.7,
No.3, 2018, pp. 54-66.
https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v7n3p54
[21] Glover, S. M., Taylor, M. H., Wu, Y. J., &
Trotman, K. T., Mind the Gap: Why do Experts
Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the
Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting
Complex Fair Value Measurements?
Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.36,
No.3, 2019, pp. 1417-1460.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12480
[22] Xu, F., & Akther, T., A Partial Least-Squares
Structural Equation Modeling Approach to
Investigate the Audit Expectation Gap and its
Impact on Investor Confidence: Perspectives
from a Developing Country. Sustainability,
Vol.11, No.20, 2019, pp. 5798.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205798
[23] Velte, P., & Issa, J., The impact of key audit
matter (KAM) disclosure in audit reports on
stakeholders’ reactions: A literature review.
Problems and Perspectives in Management,
Vol.17, No.3, 2019, pp. 323-341.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(3).2019.26
[24] Lin, Z. J., & Chen, F., An Empirical Study of
Audit ‘Expectation Gap’ in the People's
Republic of China. International Journal of
Auditing, Vol.8, No.2, 2004, pp. 93-115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2014.929519
[25] Ruhnke, K., & Schmidt, M., The Audit
Expectation Gap: Existence, Causes, and the
Impact of Changes. Accounting and Business
Research, Vol.44, No.5, 2014, pp. 572-601.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2014.929519
[26] Quick, R., The Audit Expectation Gap: A
Review of the Academic Literature.
Maandblad voor Accountancy en
Bedrijfseconomie, Vol.94, No.1/2, 2020, pp. 5-
25. https://doi.org/
[27] Velte, P., Associations between the Financial
and Industry Expertise of Audit Committee
Members and Key Audit Matters within
Related Audit Reports. Journal of Applied
Accounting Research, Vol.21, No.1, 2020, pp.
185-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-
2018-0163
[28] Naynar, N.R., Ram, A.J. & Maroun, W.,
Expectation gap between preparers and
stakeholders in integrated reporting. Meditari
Accountancy Research, Vol.26, No.2, 2018, pp.
241-262. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-12-
2017-0249
[29] Toumeh, A., Yahya, S., & Siam, W.,
Expectation Gap between Auditor and User of
Financial Statement in the Audit Process:
Auditor’s Perspective. Asia-Pacific
Management Accounting Journal, Vol.13,
No.3, 2018, pp. 79-107.
[30] Akther, T., & Xu, F., Existence of the Audit
Expectation Gap and its Impact on
Stakeholders’ Confidence: The Moderating
Role of the Financial Reporting Council.
International Journal of Financial Studies,
Vol.8, No.1, 2020, pp. 4.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs8010004
[31] Fulop, M. T., Tiron-Tudor, A., & Cordos, G.
S., Audit Education Role in Decreasing the
Expectation Gap. Journal of Education for
Business, Vol.94, No.5, 2019, pp. 306-313.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.152775
2
[32] Erasmus, L. & Coetzee, P., Drivers of
Stakeholders’ View of Internal Audit
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
437
Volume 20, 2023
Effectiveness: Management versus Audit
Committee. Managerial Auditing Journal,
Vol.33, No.1, 2018, pp. 90-114.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2017-1558
[33] Knechel, W. R., Thomas, E., & Driskill, M.,
Understanding Financial Auditing From a
Service Perspective. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol.81, 101080,
2018,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2019.101080
[34] Lee, T. H., Ali, A. M., & Bien, D., Towards an
Understanding of the Audit Expectation Gap.
The ICFAI University Journal of Audit
Practice, Vol.6, No.1, 2009, pp. 8-35.
[35] Füredi-Fülöp, J., An Empirical Study of Audit
Expectation Gap in Hungary. Theory
Methodology Practice: Club of Economics in
Miskolc, Vol.11, No.1, 2015, pp. 37-46.
https://doi.org/10.18096/TMP.2015.01.04
[36] Dung, N. N. K., & Tuan, D. A., The Study of
Audit Expectation Gap: The Auditor’s
Responsibilities in a Financial Statement Audit
in Vietnam. Asian Economic and Financial
Review, Vol.9, No.11, 2019, pp. 1227-1254.
https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr.2019.911.
1227.1254
[37] Segal, M., Key Audit Matters: Insight from
Audit Experts. Meditari Accountancy
Research, Vol.27, No.3, 2019, pp. 472-494.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2018-0355
[38] Aryanti, C., & Adhariani, D., Students'
Perceptions and Expectation Gap on the Skills
and Knowledge of Accounting Graduates. The
Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and
Business, Vol.7, No.9, 2020, pp. 649-657.
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.6
49
[39] Pinto, I., & Morais, A. I., What Matters in
Disclosures of Key Audit Matters: Evidence
from Europe. Journal of International
Financial Management & Accounting, Vol.30,
No.2, 2019, pp. 145-162.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12095
[40] Rozario, A. M., & Thomas, C., Reengineering
the Audit with Blockchain and Smart
Contracts. Journal of Emerging Technologies
in Accounting, Vol.16, No.1, 2019, pp. 21-35.
https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-52432
[41] Iwanowicz, T., & Iwanowicz, B., ISA 701 and
materiality disclosure as methods to minimize
the audit expectation gap. Journal of Risk and
Financial Management, Vol.12, No.4, 2019,
pp. 161. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12040161
[42] Abdullatif, M., Auditing Fair Value Estimates
in Developing Countries: The Case of Jordan.
Asian Journal of Business and Accounting,
Vol.9, No.2, 2016, pp.101-140.
[43] Altawalbeh, M., & Alhajaya, M., The Investors
Reaction to the Disclosure of Key Audit
Matters: Empirical Evidence from Jordan.
International Business Research, Vol.12, No.3,
2019, pp. 50-57.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n3p50
[44] Zureigat, B. N., Fadzil, F. H., & Ismail, S. S.
S., The role of foreign, family ownership and
audit committee in evaluating the company as a
going concern: Evidence from Jordan.
International Journal of Accounting and
Financial Reporting, Vol.4, No.2, 2014, pp.
329.
[45] Abdullatif, M., & Al‐Rahahleh, A. S.,
Applying a New Audit Regulation: Reporting
Key Audit Matters in Jordan. International
Journal of Auditing, Vol.24, No.2, 2020, pp.
268-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12192
[46] Shbeilat, M., & Abdel-Qader, W.,
Independence dilemma and the reliability of
the audit report: qualitative evidence from
Jordan. Australian Academy of Accounting &
Finance Review, Vol.4, No.1, 2018, pp. 22-36.
[47] Omodero, C. O., & Okafor, M. C., Audit
education as an effective tool for narrowing
audit Expectation gap: Evidence from literature
review. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, Vol.10, No.5, 2020, pp. 240-240.
https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0102
[48] Al-Sawalqa, F., & Qtish, A., Internal Control
and Audit Program Effectiveness: Empirical
Evidence from Jordan. International Business
Research, Vol.5, No.9, 2012, pp. 128-137.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n9p128
[49] Al-Dhubaibi, A., Auditors’ Responsibility for
Fraud Detection: Views of Auditors, Preparers,
and Users of Financial Statements in Saudi
Arabia. Accounting, Vol.6, No.3, 2020, pp.
279-290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2020.2.007
[50] Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, A. H., Audit
Expectation Gap: Empirical Evidence from
Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance,
Economics and Business, Vol.7, No.5, 2020,
pp. 51-60.
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no5.0
51
[51] Rustiarini, N.W., Yuesti, A. and Gama,
A.W.S., Public Accounting Profession and
Fraud Detection Responsibility. Journal of
Financial Crime, Vol.28, No.2, 2021, pp. 613-
627. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-07-2020-0140
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
438
Volume 20, 2023
[52] Rostami, V., Audit Expectation Gap in Islamic
Countries. Iranian Journal of Accounting,
Auditing and Finance, Vol.3, No.4, 2019, pp.
55-72.
[53] Fatemeh, S., Audit Expectations Gap and
Corporate Fraud: Empirical Evidence from
Iran. African Journal of Business Management,
Vol.6, No.23, 2012, pp. 7031-7041.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM12.382
[54] Al-Farah, A., Abbadi, S., & Al Shaar, E., The
Accounting and Auditing Profession in Jordan:
Its Origin and Development. Developing
Country Studies, Vol.5, No.8, 2015, pp. 167-
179.
[55] Weshah, S., Elessa, M., Shanti, A., Salameh,
R., & Al-Tahat, S., Earning Management
Practices within ERP Environment: A Case
Study of ERP’s Companies Listed in Amman
Stock Exchange. WSEAS Transactions on
Business and Economics, Vol.18, 2021, pp.
846-854. https://doi.org/
10.37394/23207.2021.18.80
[56] Hong, N. T. P., & Linh, D. T. K., Effects of
Earnings Management to Investor Decision –
Empirical Evidence in Vietnam Stock Market.
WSEAS Transactions on Environment and
Development, Vol.16, 2020, pp. 84-97.
https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2020.16.9
[57] Morano, P., Tajani, F., Guarnaccia, C., &
Anelli, D., An Optimization Decision Support
Model for Sustainable Urban Regeneration
Investments. WSEAS Transactions on
Environment and Development, Vol.17, 2021,
pp. 1245-1251.
https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2021.17.114
[58] Pourheydari, O., & Abousaiedi, M., An
Empirical Investigation of the Audit
Expectations Gap in Iran. Journal of Islamic
Accounting and Business Research, Vol.2,
No.1, 2011, pp. 63-76.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17590811111129517
[59] Porter, B., Ó hÓgartaigh, C., & Baskerville, R.,
Audit Expectation-Performance Gap Revisited:
Evidence from New Zealand and the United
Kingdom. Part 1: the Gap in New Zealand and
the United Kingdom in 2008. International
Journal of Auditing, Vol.16, No.2, 2012, pp.
101-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-
1123.2011.00443.x
[60] Köse, Y., & Erdoğan, S., The Audit
Expectations Gap in Turkey. The Journal of
Accounting and Finance, Vol.67, 2015, pp.
193-214. Retrieved from
https://journal.mufad.org/attachments/article/80
4/12.pdf
[61] Lamprecht, C., & Guetterman, T., Mixed
Methods in Accounting: A Field-Based
Analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research,
Vol.27, No.6, 2019, pp. 921-938.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-11-2018-0403
[62] Hair, J., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N., The
Essentials of Business Research Methods (4th
Edition). 2019 Routledge, London.
[63] Eichhorn, J., Survey Research and Sampling.
2022. SAGE Publications Ltd. United
Kingdom.
[64] Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta,
A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. Descriptive statistics
and normality tests for statistical data. Annals
of Cardiac Anaesthesia, Vol.22, No.1, 2019,
pp. 67-72.
https://doi.org/10.4103%2Faca.ACA_157_18
[65] Orcan, F., Parametric or Non-Parametric:
Skewness to Test Normality for Mean
Comparison. International Journal of
Assessment Tools in Education, Vol.7, No.2,
2020, pp. 255-265.
https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.656077
[66] Hanusz, Z., & Tarasińska, J., Normalization of
the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk
Tests of Normality. Biometrical Letters,
Vol.52, No.2, 2015, pp. 85-93.
https://doi.org/10.1515/bile-2015-0008
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
Alkhateeb carried out the initial research,
introduction, literature review, data analysis
revision, and conclusion,
Shrydeh carried out the data analysis tests, statistical
parts, and their associated write up.
Mohammad designed the survey and collected the
data and completed the methodology section.
Kanaan carried out the literature review, discussion
and conclusion, implications/limitations, and
revisions.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article from
This research was not funded by any organization
and is paid for by authors.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.39
Nadia Ahmad Alkhateeb, Najib Shrydeh,
Suleiman Jamal Mohammad, Omar Ali Kanaan
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
439
Volume 20, 2023
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US