{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02693310165073849, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01998262380538662, 'mean_word_length': 5.063157894736842, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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

Criticism of auditors and loss of confidence in their work result from auditors not meeting society's expectations of them; that is, from the audit expectation‐performance gap. Prior research found this gap has three components: a reasonableness, deficient standards and deficient performance gap. In 2008, research was conducted to identify differences in the audit expectation‐performance gap in the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ). A questionnaire was mailed to 1,610 participants in the UK and 1,555 in NZ, from the auditor, auditee and financial and non‐financial audit beneficiaries interest groups; usable response rates of 14 and 29 per cent, respectively, were obtained. The research found that the composition and structure of the gap in NZ and the UK were broadly similar but the gap was nearly 40 per cent wider in NZ. It is suggested that this difference may be traced to greater awareness of audit issues and more stringent monitoring of auditors' performance in the UK.