MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY; A
REEXAMINATION AND EXTENSION
Service industries are playing an increasingly important role in the overall economy of
the United States. The growing importance of the service sector is not limited to the
US.
Measuring service quality becomes increasingly important, and the delivery of higher
levels of service quality is the strategy that is increasingly being offered as a key to
service providers’ efforts to position themselves more effectively in the marketplace.
However, service quality is an elusive and abstract construct that is difficult to define
and measure.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Service quality: a form of attitude, related but not equivalent to satisfaction, that
results from the comparison of expectations with performance
This definition suggests ambiguity between the definition and the conceptualization of
service quality. The most common explanation of the difference between service
quality and satisfaction is that perceived service quality (PSQ) is a form of attitude, a
long run evaluation, whereas satisfaction is a transaction-specific measure. The
difference lies in the way disconfirmation is operationalized; the should (service
quality) and would (satisfaction) expectations.
Literature has left confusion as to the relationship between consumer satisfaction and
service quality. The difference is important since service providers need to know
whether their objective should be to have consumers who are ‘satisfied’ with their
performance or to deliver the maximum level of ‘PSQ’.
Recent research suggests that satisfaction is an antecedent1 of service quality.
Bolton & Drew: PSQ = a consumer’s residual perception of the service’s quality
from the prior period and his or her level of (dis)satisfaction with
the current level of service performance
Their results suggest that PSQ is strongly affected by current performance and that
the impact of disconfirmation is relatively weak and transitory.
IMPLICATIONS FROM THE SATISFACTION AND ATTITUDE LITERATURE
A major problem in the literature is the hesitance to call PSQ an attitude.
Oliver: Consumers form an attitude about a service provider on the basis of
their prior expectations about the performance of the firm, and this
attitude affects their intentions to purchase from that organization. This
attitude is then modified by the level of (dis)satisfaction experienced by
the consumer during subsequent encounters with the firm.
1 voorgaande
,Oliver’s research suggests that service quality and consumer satisfaction are distinct
constructs, but are related in that satisfaction mediates the effect of prior-period
perceptions of service quality to cause a revised service quality perception to be
formed. Satisfaction this rapidly becomes part of the revised perception of service
quality. This calls into question the use of the disconfirmation framework as the
primary measure of service quality, because disconfirmation appears only to mediate,
not define, consumer’s perceptions of service quality.
A review of alternative attitude models suggests that the ‘adequacy-importance’ form
in the most efficient model to use if the objective is to predict behavioural intention or
actual behaviour. An individual’s attitude is defined by his/her importance-weighted
evaluation of the performance of the specific dimensions of a product or service.
Experimental evidence indicates that the performance dimension alone predicts the
behavioural intentions and behaviour at least as well as the complete model.
Churchill and Surprenant also partially supports the effectiveness of using only
performance perceptions to measure service quality. The results of one experiment
suggested that performance alone determines the satisfaction of subjects.
Woodruff, Cadotte and Jenkins suggest that including importance weights and
expectations only introduces redundancy. Bolton and Drew concluded that current
(1991) performance ratings strongly affect attitudes whereas the effects of
disconfirmation are generally insignificant and transitory.
Conclusion:
1. PSQ is best conceptualized as an attitude
2. The adequacy-importance model is the most effective attitude-based
operationalization of service quality
3. Current performance adequately captures consumers' perceptions of the
service quality offered by a specific service provider
OPERATIONALIZING SERVICE QUALITY
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry developed SERVQUAL consisting of five
dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The scale
development procedures used appear to support the face validity of the 22 scale
items included in the scale, but the issue of how the service quality measure should
be constructed and whether the individual scale items actually describe five separate
service quality components is problematic. However, the validity of the 22 individual
performance scale items that make up the SERVQUAL scale appears to be well
supported both by the procedures used to develop the items and by their subsequent
use as reported in the literature.
METHODS
ORGANIZATION OF THE RESEARCH
Step 1: examining the dimensionality of SERVQUAL
Determine whether the 22 scale items that define the SERVQUAL scale have the
same factor loading pattern for the firms investigated as was found by Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry. This is to produce evidence of the reliability of the SERVQUAL.
, Step 2: comparison of alternative measures of service quality
Examine the original SERVQUAL scale, an importance-weighted SERVQUAL, a
performance-based approach to measurement of service quality (SERVPERF) and
an importance-weighted version of the SERVPERF scale. This is done in two steps.
1. Assess ability of each of the four scale to explain variation in service quality
(regression)
2. Examine each measure’s theoretical support
a. Degree of fit of respective models
b. The significance of the effect on service quality attributed to each of the
alternative measures
Step 3: analysis of relationship between service quality, consumer satisfaction, and
purchase intention
1. Consider the casual order of the consumer satisfaction-service quality
relationship
2. Consider the effect of consumer satisfaction on purchase intentions
3. Consider the effect of service quality on purchase intentions.
THE SAMPLE
Personal interviews, 660 usable questionnaires, south-eastern United States, random
Sampling frame: entire population of the city
Responses were gathered on the service quality offered by two firms in one of the
industries: banking, pest control, dry cleaning and fast food.
These industries were chose on the basis of the results of a convenience survey
suggesting that these were the four service industries most familiar to the area’s
consumers. Companies choose on sale volume in the city.
MEASURES
The measures needed for the study were expectations, perceptions of performance,
and importance measures to construct the four alternative measures of service
quality, a direct measure of service quality, a measure of consumer satisfaction, and
a purchase intentions measure.
RESULTS
DIMENSIONALITY, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF SERVICE QUALITY
MEASURES
Dimensionality and reliability
The confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the dimensionality of
SERVQUAL. The results were that the original SERVQUAL scale is not confirmed in
any of the research samples. The chi square indicated a poor fit between the
theoretical and measurement models for the 5-component structure. The
undimensionality was assessed of the 22 items using both the SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF scale; 21 stood the test. 1 item loaded very weakly in SERVQUAL and
REEXAMINATION AND EXTENSION
Service industries are playing an increasingly important role in the overall economy of
the United States. The growing importance of the service sector is not limited to the
US.
Measuring service quality becomes increasingly important, and the delivery of higher
levels of service quality is the strategy that is increasingly being offered as a key to
service providers’ efforts to position themselves more effectively in the marketplace.
However, service quality is an elusive and abstract construct that is difficult to define
and measure.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Service quality: a form of attitude, related but not equivalent to satisfaction, that
results from the comparison of expectations with performance
This definition suggests ambiguity between the definition and the conceptualization of
service quality. The most common explanation of the difference between service
quality and satisfaction is that perceived service quality (PSQ) is a form of attitude, a
long run evaluation, whereas satisfaction is a transaction-specific measure. The
difference lies in the way disconfirmation is operationalized; the should (service
quality) and would (satisfaction) expectations.
Literature has left confusion as to the relationship between consumer satisfaction and
service quality. The difference is important since service providers need to know
whether their objective should be to have consumers who are ‘satisfied’ with their
performance or to deliver the maximum level of ‘PSQ’.
Recent research suggests that satisfaction is an antecedent1 of service quality.
Bolton & Drew: PSQ = a consumer’s residual perception of the service’s quality
from the prior period and his or her level of (dis)satisfaction with
the current level of service performance
Their results suggest that PSQ is strongly affected by current performance and that
the impact of disconfirmation is relatively weak and transitory.
IMPLICATIONS FROM THE SATISFACTION AND ATTITUDE LITERATURE
A major problem in the literature is the hesitance to call PSQ an attitude.
Oliver: Consumers form an attitude about a service provider on the basis of
their prior expectations about the performance of the firm, and this
attitude affects their intentions to purchase from that organization. This
attitude is then modified by the level of (dis)satisfaction experienced by
the consumer during subsequent encounters with the firm.
1 voorgaande
,Oliver’s research suggests that service quality and consumer satisfaction are distinct
constructs, but are related in that satisfaction mediates the effect of prior-period
perceptions of service quality to cause a revised service quality perception to be
formed. Satisfaction this rapidly becomes part of the revised perception of service
quality. This calls into question the use of the disconfirmation framework as the
primary measure of service quality, because disconfirmation appears only to mediate,
not define, consumer’s perceptions of service quality.
A review of alternative attitude models suggests that the ‘adequacy-importance’ form
in the most efficient model to use if the objective is to predict behavioural intention or
actual behaviour. An individual’s attitude is defined by his/her importance-weighted
evaluation of the performance of the specific dimensions of a product or service.
Experimental evidence indicates that the performance dimension alone predicts the
behavioural intentions and behaviour at least as well as the complete model.
Churchill and Surprenant also partially supports the effectiveness of using only
performance perceptions to measure service quality. The results of one experiment
suggested that performance alone determines the satisfaction of subjects.
Woodruff, Cadotte and Jenkins suggest that including importance weights and
expectations only introduces redundancy. Bolton and Drew concluded that current
(1991) performance ratings strongly affect attitudes whereas the effects of
disconfirmation are generally insignificant and transitory.
Conclusion:
1. PSQ is best conceptualized as an attitude
2. The adequacy-importance model is the most effective attitude-based
operationalization of service quality
3. Current performance adequately captures consumers' perceptions of the
service quality offered by a specific service provider
OPERATIONALIZING SERVICE QUALITY
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry developed SERVQUAL consisting of five
dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The scale
development procedures used appear to support the face validity of the 22 scale
items included in the scale, but the issue of how the service quality measure should
be constructed and whether the individual scale items actually describe five separate
service quality components is problematic. However, the validity of the 22 individual
performance scale items that make up the SERVQUAL scale appears to be well
supported both by the procedures used to develop the items and by their subsequent
use as reported in the literature.
METHODS
ORGANIZATION OF THE RESEARCH
Step 1: examining the dimensionality of SERVQUAL
Determine whether the 22 scale items that define the SERVQUAL scale have the
same factor loading pattern for the firms investigated as was found by Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry. This is to produce evidence of the reliability of the SERVQUAL.
, Step 2: comparison of alternative measures of service quality
Examine the original SERVQUAL scale, an importance-weighted SERVQUAL, a
performance-based approach to measurement of service quality (SERVPERF) and
an importance-weighted version of the SERVPERF scale. This is done in two steps.
1. Assess ability of each of the four scale to explain variation in service quality
(regression)
2. Examine each measure’s theoretical support
a. Degree of fit of respective models
b. The significance of the effect on service quality attributed to each of the
alternative measures
Step 3: analysis of relationship between service quality, consumer satisfaction, and
purchase intention
1. Consider the casual order of the consumer satisfaction-service quality
relationship
2. Consider the effect of consumer satisfaction on purchase intentions
3. Consider the effect of service quality on purchase intentions.
THE SAMPLE
Personal interviews, 660 usable questionnaires, south-eastern United States, random
Sampling frame: entire population of the city
Responses were gathered on the service quality offered by two firms in one of the
industries: banking, pest control, dry cleaning and fast food.
These industries were chose on the basis of the results of a convenience survey
suggesting that these were the four service industries most familiar to the area’s
consumers. Companies choose on sale volume in the city.
MEASURES
The measures needed for the study were expectations, perceptions of performance,
and importance measures to construct the four alternative measures of service
quality, a direct measure of service quality, a measure of consumer satisfaction, and
a purchase intentions measure.
RESULTS
DIMENSIONALITY, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF SERVICE QUALITY
MEASURES
Dimensionality and reliability
The confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the dimensionality of
SERVQUAL. The results were that the original SERVQUAL scale is not confirmed in
any of the research samples. The chi square indicated a poor fit between the
theoretical and measurement models for the 5-component structure. The
undimensionality was assessed of the 22 items using both the SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF scale; 21 stood the test. 1 item loaded very weakly in SERVQUAL and
