MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047656948 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n10p56

Strategic Effects of Product Innovation, Service Quality, and Relationship Quality on Brand Equity

2015· article· en· W2047656948 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jalal Rajeh Hanaysha, Haim Hilman

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrand equityBusinessStructural equation modelingProduct (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)MarketingService qualityEquity (law)Product innovationBrand managementService (business)Order (exchange)Computer sciencePolitical scienceMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the effects of product innovation and service quality on brand equity mediated by relationship quality. To date, the patterns in past research show that there is less attention been paid to examine the importance of product innovation and service quality in affecting brand equity. Thus, in order to explore our knowledge in this area, this study was conducted among car users in Northern region of Malaysia. The data were analyzed using SPSS and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The findings indicated that product innovation and service quality have significant positive effects on relationship quality and brand equity. Moreover, the findings revealed that relationship quality mediates the relationship between product innovation and brand equity. It also shows that relationship quality mediates the relationship between service quality and brand equity. Based on these results, several implications and future research suggestions are discussed in this paper in order to explore our knowledge towards the importance of product innovation and service quality in affecting relationship quality and brand equity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207