Assessing The Fit And Stability Of Alternative Measures Of Service Quality

Abstract

<span>Despite continued research, no single approach to assessing service quality has emerged as a standard, and reconciliation of the differences among these approaches remains quixotic. This paper focuses on the empirical assessment of different approaches to measuring service quality. Furthermore, this work examines the stability of these approaches by comparing the different measures among three companies within the same industry. Two of these approaches (difference scores and perceptions only) are discussed in the existing literature. The third approach (log of the ratio) is introduced in this work because of its potential quantitative advantage for assessing service quality while preserving the comparison between perceptions and expectations. A fourth approach (ratio) is included for completeness. Despite the proposed advantages of the log of the ratio approach, results suggest that the different score performs the best. Moreover, the five-factor solution originally posited by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) provides a better fit than the one-factor solution advanced by Cronin and Taylor (1992). While these findings substantiate Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berrys approach, the strength of the model fit still suggests a need for continued development of measure to effectively assess service quality.</span>

Measuring Commuters’ Perception on Service Quality Using SERVQUAL in Public Transportation

“…The case is reverse in this study as tangibility was not the most preferred. The factor analysis shows that ten statements were inter-located within the dimensions, hence it proves the truthfulness that the SERVQUAL scale need to be modified to suit to a particular study situation as said by earlier researchers like (Stafford, 1999;Akan, 1995). This study has identified that there is a need and scope to develop a distinctive measurement scale to measure service quality in public transportation.…”

“…Factor analysis was used to analyze the data resulting in the elimination of one dimension : tangibility and three items, further bringing down the item count to twenty three, this revealed that The remaining dimensions are reliable and valid. In several service quality measurement studies done by Parasuraman et al, 1991;Parasuraman et al, 2005;Sahu, 2006;Snipes et al, 2006;Stafford, 1999;Vandamme & Leunis, 1993;Yu et al, 2008) the scale refinement was done resulting in elimination of some items and dimensions. Based on the regression model, it was assessed that culture is one of the important dimension of service quality in public transportation.…”

“…This measurement scale was developed, as suggested by (Stafford, 1999;Akan, 1995) that SERVQUAL need to be modified to suit to a particular industry context. Hence in the present study culture as sixth dimension has been added ref figure 2.…”

The influence of line managers and HR department on employees' affective commitment

“…The HR department's service quality To measure employees' perceptions of the HR department's service quality, we used four dimensions of the validated SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al, 1988;Parasuraman, Berry & Zeithaml, 1991). Considering the argument of Stafford and his colleagues that modifications to this instrument might be required to reflect the specific features of a particular setting (Stafford, Prybutok, Wells & Kappelman, 1999), we adapted the instrument to the context of the HR department delivering HR services. The four dimensions are:…”

Service Quality Performance Scale in Higher Education: Culture as a New Dimension

“…SERVQUAL and SERVPREF faced problems like construct validity and inapplicable to different service settings, hence they needed to be modified to suit to a particular domain (Parasuraman et al, 1991;Stafford, 1999). In several service quality measurement studies done under different domains, scale refinement was done resulting in elimination and addition of some items and dimensions (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988;Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991;Cronin & Taylor, 1992;Stafford, 1999;Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Malhotra, 2005;Firdaus, 2006a). Even though SERVQUAL was refined in numerous occasions the generic scale of (Parasuraman et al, 1988) finds its importance in giving direction to past, present and future scales developed for measuring service quality.…”