Development of the Instruments for measuring the quality of E-Banking services in the Republic of Serbia: E-BSrb-QUAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most commonly used model to measure the quality of electronic services is the E-Service Quality - E-SQ (E-S-QUAL and E-RecS-QUAL). Acknowledging the results of existing research and the attempts to create a unique model for measuring the quality of e-services, the main goal of this paper is to rate the quality of e-banking in Serbia by testing the applicability of the E-SQ model. The results, gained through empirical research, design, and distribution of a distinctive questionnaire to the users of e-banking services in central and southeast Serbia, were systematized and statistically processed by factor analysis of the principal components (PCA). The outcome defined an initial instrument called E-BSrb-QUAL, with seven dimensions of e-banking quality in Serbia, and they are 1. Personalization, 2. Safety, 3. Accessibility, 4. Contact, 5. Efficiency/Response, 6. Trust, and 7. Reliability. The Importance-Performance analysis (IPA) showed the strength of Serbian banks and confirmed the most significant and crucial dimensions of e-banking service quality are Trust, Safety, and Reliability. On the other hand, Personalization, Accessibility, and Efficiency/Response dimensions are estimated as overrated.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".