paraphrase all this:

3.0 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Methodology : 3.1.1Instrumentation for Validity and Reliability Studies Checking and evaluating the questionnaire's reliability is crucial. This is done to eliminate the chance of incorrect or irrelevant responses. As a consequence, two professors who teach auditing classes at our university looked through the questions and double-checked their accuracy. As a consequence of their input, the questionnaire was altered. To assure dependability, the degree of homogeneity of the replies was also determined, meaning that the questionnaire was error-free. It was deemed reliable if the questionnaire's responses were consistent when repeated. The internal reliability of the questionnaire's variables (Agree Strongly, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Disagree Strongly) was determined using Cornbrash's Alpha, a scaled response method. Table 1 Reliability of the Questionnaire After SPSS computations, the results in Table 1 were discovered. The questionnaire received a score of 0.812, as can be seen. Since all of the results are more than 0.6, they are approved. 3.1.2 Research Hypotheses Based on their earlier literature review, the following null hypothesis and research framework were constructed in light of the found factors: H01: The auditors' efforts in Bahrain have had no impact on the audit expectation gap. H02: The ability of the auditors in Bahrain has no significant impact on the audit expectation gap. H03: In Bahrain, society's perceptions have little impact on the audit expectation gap. H04: In Bahrain, the audit expectation gap is unaffected by the needs of the users. H05: All components (auditors' efforts, auditors' skills, society's knowledge, and users' needs) have no effect on the size of the audit expectation gap. Figure 1 Conceptual framework

4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENT YOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND INFERENCES

4.1 Introduction This section will describe the quantitative examination of the study sample answers that were obtained via the display of initial indexes such as means, standard deviations, and comparative relevance for each factor. It will also put the study's hypotheses to the test, as well as their statistical significance. 1.2 Performance Measures Question one: Do the efforts of auditors throughout the auditing process have an effect on the size of the audit expectation gap? The mean and standard deviation were calculated using qualitative analysis to get the answer to this query. Following that, it is further studied by evaluating the related hypotheses. Figure 2 Descriptive statistics for the auditors' work Question Two: Is it true that the size of the audit expectation gap is determined by the auditors' abilities? By calculating the mean and standard deviation, the descriptive analysis was used to find the answer to this question. Following that, it will be thoroughly studied by evaluating the related hypotheses. Figure 3 Descriptive statistics for auditors' abilities Question Three: Is society's awareness of the audit profession affecting the magnitude of the audit expectation gap? By calculating the mean and standard deviation, the descriptive analysis was used to get the solution to this issue. Following this, it is further studied by evaluating the related hypotheses. Figure 4 Descriptive data regarding society's understanding of the audit profession Question Four: Is the magnitude of the audit expectation gap influenced by user demands? By calculating the mean and standard deviation, the descriptive analysis was used to get the solution to this issue. Following that, this will be further studied by evaluating the related hypotheses. Figure 5 descriptive statistics for the requirements of the users. Question five: Is there a Difference in Audit Expectations in Bahrain? By calculating the mean and standard deviation, the descriptive analysis was used to get the answer to this question. Following that, it will be further studied by evaluating the related hypotheses. Figure 6 for the presence of the Audit Expectation Gap, descriptive data are provided 4.3 Experimental Results The mean ranged among 3.99 and 2.47, with a total mean of 3.35, suggesting a medium degree, according to Figure 2. According to the respondents, auditors' skills are ordinary when it comes to influencing the size of the audit expectation gap, as illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 4 reveals that the society's overall comprehension of the audit profession is 2.58, with variables 11 and 15 ranging from 3.35 to 2.1. Figure 5 depicts the mean of the users' needs, which was computed at 3.18 on a scale of 3.63 to 2.53 and has a medium level of importance. The existence of an audit expectation gap in Bahrain shows a dependent variable that is influenced by all of the difficulties described above; the findings of the dependent variables are given in Figure 6. 4.4 Overall Experimental Results Analysis Fig.2 reveals that the very first question has the highest mean of 3.99 and the smallest standard deviation of 1.02, indicating that it is noteworthy. The forth variable, on the other hand, came in last, with a mean of 2.47 and a standard deviation of 1.32, suggesting that it is of medium importance. According to the findings, respondents thought auditors' effort was approximately average. As illustrated in Figure 3, auditors' abilities to change the degree of the audit expectation gap from the participants' perspective are medians, as all of the questions had a medium impact with a total mean of 2.91. The mean ranged from 3.21 to 2.71, with the ninth variable having the highest mean and the tenth variable having the lowest mean, with standard deviations of 1.53 and 1.51, respectively. Three of the variables in this factor's question 3 had a high median degree of significance in the eyes of the respondents, while two had a low level; variable 12 had the highest standard deviation of 1.64, whereas variable 14 had the lowest standard deviation of 1.19. As a consequence, the magnitude of the audit expectation gap is somewhat affected by society's understanding of the audit. Question 19 had the highest mean 3.63 and a 1.49 standard deviation, while question 18 had the least mean 2.53 and a 1.49 standard deviation. The overall factor was very significant, with the mean range of 3.83.36 for the 20th and 24th questions, respectively, and a standard deviation of 1.27 for the first and 1.38 for the second. 4.5 Summary Overall, auditor effort has a modest influence preceding the extent of audit expectation gap in answer 1. The medium influence of the auditors' abilities on the amount of audit expectation gap is shown in Figure 3. Regardless of audit level, society's awareness of the audit profession has to be improved in order to drastically minimize the audit expectation gap in question three. . Since the quantity of clients' requests affects the level of the audit expectation gap, the level of the audit expectation gap will be bigger being referred to 4. Two of the factors had a serious level of significance, and three had a medium level of significance, prompting the end that there is an audit expectation gap in Bahrain. All things considered, outside reviewers have an awesome potential to cut the level of the audit expectation gap in Bahrain by chipping away at the four free factors and expanding mindfulness through learning courses and classes, as displayed in figure.