Bank service quality: comparing Canadian and Tunisian customer perceptions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to compare perceptions of bank service quality among Tunisian and Canadian customers, and to determine which dimensions of service quality make the greatest contribution to overall customer satisfaction and loyalty. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using self‐administered questionnaires from two convenience samples of bank customers (250 in Canada and 222 in Tunisia). Service quality was measured using the five SERVQUAL dimensions of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, ANOVA and linear regression. Findings Respondents in both countries reported high levels of perceived service quality in banks. However, Canadians reported higher perceived service quality than Tunisians for all five SERVQUAL dimensions, and for 21 of the 22 individual items. In the Canadian sample, empathy and reliability were found to be the most important predictors of satisfaction and loyalty, while in the Tunisian sample, reliability and responsiveness were the most important predictors of satisfaction and loyalty. Practical implications Canadian bank managers should recognize the importance of “empathy” in service delivery by implementing appropriate customer‐oriented strategies. Tunisian bank managers should focus on performing promised services dependably and accurately. Originality/value Despite the large number of studies on individual countries, few studies compare bank service quality among different countries. The present study compares perceptions of bank service quality between consumers in two countries – Canada and Tunisia – that have different economic and cultural environments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it