MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047190678 · doi:10.5430/jms.v11n3p13

The Mediation Effect of Customer Satisfaction on the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer Loyalty

2020· article· en· W3047190678 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louisa M. Nyan, Samuel B. Rockson, Paul Kwesi Addo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyalty business modelCustomer satisfactionService qualityBusinessCustomer advocacyCustomer retentionMediationMarketingCustomer delightCustomer equityCustomer to customerCustomer intelligenceService (business)Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to investigate customer satisfaction’s mediation role in the relationship between service quality and customer loyalty within Ghana’s telecommunication sector. The report followed an approach to quantitative analysis and questionnaires to collect data from 105 respondents. The statistical analysis was performed using descriptive methods and inferential statistical techniques in IBM SPSS. The mediation analysis was made using Hayes' PROCESS macro model 4. Results of the analysis showed that quality of service is a substantially positive indicator of customer loyalty. It was also evident that Service Quality had a significant and positive influence on customer satisfaction. The direction between the mediator (Customer Satisfaction) and Customer Loyalty was positive but not significant. Again, it became evident that customer satisfaction partially balances the relationship between service quality and customer loyalty. It was evident that telecommunications companies' service quality cannot be the only predictor of customer loyalty, but customer satisfaction should be considered. The study recommends that telecommunications companies in Ghana should lose the script or the strict customer interaction code, review and analyze customer interactions, make multifunctional supports available and reconnect with disgruntled customers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207