Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension

Author(s): J. Joseph Cronin, Jr. and Steven A. Taylor

Source: Journal of Marketing , Jul., 1992, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 55-68
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of American Marketing Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1252296

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1252296?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Marketing Association and Sage Publications, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J. Joseph Cronin, Jr. & Steven A. Taylor

Measuring Service Quality: A

Reexamination and Extension
The authors investigate the conceptualization and measurement of service quality and the r
between service quality, consumer satisfaction, and purchase intentions. A literature review s
the current operationalization of service quality confounds satisfaction and attitude. Hence, t
test (1) an alternative method of operationalizing perceived service quality and (2) the signifi
relationships between service quality, consumer satisfaction, and purchase intentions. The
gest that (1) a performance-based measure of service quality may be an improved means of
the service quality construct, (2) service quality is an antecedent of consumer satisfaction, (3
satisfaction has a significant effect on purchase intentions, and (4) service quality has less ef
chase intentions than does consumer satisfaction. Implications for managers and future re
discussed.

ERVICE industries are playing an increasingly thus understandably high and the delivery of higher
important role in the overall economy of the United
levels of service quality is the strategy that is increas-
States (Bateson 1989; Ginzberg and Vojta 1981; Koepp ingly being offered as a key to service providers' ef-
1987). In fact, the proportion of the U.S. populationforts to position themselves more effectively in the
employed in the service sector increased from 30% in
marketplace (cf. Brown and Swartz 1989; Parasura-
1900 to 74% in 1984 (Bateson 1989). Koepp (1987) man, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988; Rudie and Wansley
suggests that this sector is continuing to increase, 1985;asThompson, DeSouza, and Gale 1985). How-
85% of all the new jobs created since 1982 have ever, beenthe problem inherent in the implementation of
in service industries. Bateson (1989) further suggestssuch a strategy has been eloquently identified by sev-
that the growing importance of the service sector is
eral researchers: service quality is an elusive and ab-
stract
not limited to the United States, as services currently construct that is difficult to define and measure
account for 58% of the total worldwide GNP. There (Brown and Swartz 1989; Carman 1990; Crosby 1979;
even appears to be executive consensus in the United Garvin 1983; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985,
1988; Rathmell 1966). In addition, to date the im-
States that service quality is one of the most important
problems facing management today (Blackiston 1988; portant relationships between service quality, cus-
Cound 1988; Cravens 1988; Langevin 1988; Sherden
tomer satisfaction, and purchasing behavior remain
1988). largely unexplored.
Interest in the measurement of service quality is Our research has two objectives. First, we suggest
that the current conceptualization and operationaliza-
tion
J. Joseph Cronin, Jr. is Associate Professor of Marketing, Florida State of service quality (SERVQUAL) is inadequate.
The
University. Steven A. Taylor is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Illinois SERVQUAL scale is based on Parasuraman, Zei-
State University. The research was completed while the second authorthaml, and Berry's (1985) gap theory, which suggests
was a doctoral candidate at Florida State University. The authors ex-
that the difference between consumers' expectations
press their sincere appreciation to the editor and three anonymous JM
reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of the
about the performance of a general class of service
article. providers and their assessment of the actual perfor-
mance of a specific firm within that class drives the

Journal of Marketing
Vol. 56 (July 1992), 55-68
Measuring Service Quality/ 55

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 perception of service quality. However, little if any a long-run overall evaluation, whereas satisfaction is
theoretical or empirical evidence supports the rele- a transaction-specific measure (Bitner 1990; Bolton
vance of the expectations-performance gap as the ba- and Drew 1991a; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, Berry 1988).
sis for measuring service quality (Carman 1990). In Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) further sug-
fact, the marketing literature appears to offer consid- gest that the difference lies in the way disconfirmation
erable support for the superiority of simple performance- is operationalized. They state that in measuring per-
based measures of service quality (cf. Bolton and Drew ceived service quality the level of comparison is what
1991a,b; Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Mazis, Ah- a consumer should expect, whereas in measures of
tola, and Klippel 1975; Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jen- satisfaction the appropriate comparison is what a con-
kins 1983). We therefore develop and test a perfor- sumer would expect. However, such a differentiation
mance-based alternative to the SERVQUAL measure. appears to be inconsistent with Woodruff, Cadotte,
The second objective is to examine the relation- and Jenkins' (1983) suggestion that expectations should
ships between service quality, consumer satisfaction, be based on experience norms-what consumers should
and purchase intentions. Though these relationships expect from a given service provider given their ex-
have been discussed theoretically (cf. Bitner 1990; perience with that specific type of service organiza-
Bolton and Drew 1991a,b; Brown and Swartz 1989; tion.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988; Zeithaml, Thus, the service literature has left confusion as
Parasuraman, and Berry 1990), they have not been to the relationship between consumer satisfaction and
subjected to a thorough empirical test. In particular, service quality. This distinction is important to man-
the purpose of the second phase of our study is to agers and researchers alike because service providers
provide managers and researchers more information need to know whether their objective should be to have
about (1) the causal order of the relationship between consumers who are "satisfied" with their performance
service quality and customer satisfaction and (2) the or to deliver the maximum level of "perceived service
impact of service quality and customer satisfaction on quality." The importance of this issue has led to sev-
purchase intentions. Simply stated, the managers of eral recent efforts to clarify the relationship between
service providers need to know how to measure ser- satisfaction and service quality (c.f., Bitner 1990;
vice quality, what aspects of a particular service best Bolton and Drew 1991a,b; Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
define its quality, and whether consumers actually and Berry 1985, 1988).
purchase from firms that have the highest level of per-
Initially Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985,
ceived service quality or from those with which they
1988) proposed that higher levels of perceived service
are most "satisfied." quality result in increased consumer satisfaction, but
After presenting theoretical background, we de-more recent evidence suggests that satisfaction is an
scribe our research methods and results. We then dis-
antecedent of service quality (cf. Bitner 1990; Bolton
cuss our findings and explore their implications for
and Drew 1991a,b). In particular, Bitner has dem-
management and for future research. Finally, we onstrated
ex- empirically a significant causal path be-
amine the limitations of our study. tween satisfaction and service quality in a structural
equation analysis. In a second study, Bolton and Drew
(1991a) used the common assumption that service
quality is analogous to an attitude as a basis to suggest
Theoretical Background that satisfaction is an antecedent of service quality.
Service quality has been described as a form of atti-
Specifically, Bolton and Drew posit that perceived
tude, related but not equivalent to satisfaction, that
service quality (ATI'IT'UDE,) is a function of a con-
results from the comparison of expectations with per-
sumer's residual perception of the service's quality from
formance (Bolton and Drew 1991a; Parasuraman, the prior period (ATFI'IUDEt_-) and his or her level
Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). A close examinationof of(dis)satisfaction with the current level of service
this definition suggests ambiguity between the defi-
performance (CS/D't).' This notion suggests that sat-
nition and the conceptualization of service quality.
isfaction is a distinct construct that mediates prior per-
Though researchers admit that the current measure-
ceptions of service quality to form the current per-
ment of consumers' perceptions of service quality
ception of service quality.
closely conforms to the disconfirmation paradigm
(Bitner 1990; Bolton and Drew 1991a), they also sug- ATTITUDE, = g(CS/Dt, ATTITUDEt-,) (1)
gest that service quality and satisfaction are distinct
Bolton and Drew (1991 a) indicate this relation implies
constructs (Bitner 1990; Bolton and Drew 1991a,b; that the disconfirmation process, expectations, and
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). The most performance all should have a significant impact on
common explanation of the difference between the two
is that perceived service quality is a form of attitude,
'CS/D, = Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction.

56 / Journal of Marketing, July 1992

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
consumers' current perceptions of service quality. If one considers service quality to be an attitude,
However, their results suggest that perceived service Oliver's (1980) study suggests that (1) in the absence
quality is strongly affected by current performance and of prior experience with a service provider, expecta-
that the impact of disconfirmation is relatively weak tions initially define the level of perceived service
and transitory. quality, (2) upon the first experience with the service
Finally, Bolton and Drew (1991b) extend the dis- provider, the disconfirmation process leads to a re-
cussion of the relationship between satisfaction and vision in the initial level of perceived service quality,
service quality by proposing the following structural (3) subsequent experiences with the service provider
equations. will lead to further disconfirmation, which again mod-
Service Quality = qo (CS/D,, Disconfirmation) (2) ifies the level of perceived service quality, and (4) the
redefined level of perceived service quality similarly
CS/D, (3) modifies a consumer's purchase intentions toward that
=c(Disconfirmation, Expectations, service provider. Performance)
To gain Hence, Oliver's
more
into Bolton research and
insight suggests Drew's
that service fi
quality and consumer
ings, and into how service quality should satisfaction are distinct con- be
sured, we next brieflystructs,
examinebut are related inthe
that satisfaction mediates the
satisfaction
attitude literatures. effect of prior-period perceptions of service quality to
cause a revised service quality perception to be formed.
Satisfaction thus rapidly becomes part of the revised
Implications From the Satisfaction and
perception of service quality. This logic is consistent
Attitude Literatures
with Bolton and Drew's (1991a) findings and also calls
A major problem in the literature is the hesitancy to question the use of the disconfirmation frame-
into
call perceived service quality an attitude. The litera-
work as the primary measure of service quality, be-
ture's position is typified by Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
cause disconfirmation appears only to mediate, not
and Berry's (1988) description of service quality as
define, consumers' perceptions of service quality.
"... similar in many ways to an attitude" (p. 15). If in fact service quality is to be conceptualized
Researchers have attempted to differentiate service
as "similar to an attitude," perhaps more information
quality from consumer satisfaction, even while using
could be generated for managers and researchers alike
the disconfirmation format to measure perceptions if the measurement of the construct conformed to an
of service quality (cf. Bitner 1990; Carman 1990; attitude-based conceptualization. A review of alter-
Gronroos 1990; Heskett, Sasser, and Hart 1990;native attitude models suggests that the "adequacy-
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988; Zeithaml, importance" form is the most efficient model to use
Parasuraman, and Berry 1990). However, this if ap-the objective is to predict behavioral intention or
proach is not consistent with the differentiation actual
ex- behavior (Mazis, Ahtola, Klippel 1975). In this
pressed between these constructs in the satisfaction and
model, an individual's attitude is defined by his or
attitude literatures.
her importance-weighted evaluation of the perfor-
Oliver (1980) suggests that attitude (ATT) is ini- mance of the specific dimensions of a product or ser-
tially a function of expectations (EXP) [ATT1t = vice (see Cohen, Fishbein, and Ahtola 1972). How-
f(EXP)] and subsequently a function of the prior at- ever, experimental evidence indicates that the
titude toward and the present level of satisfaction (SAT) performance dimension alone predicts behavioral in-
with a product or service [ATTt2 = f(ATT1t, SATt2)]. tentions and behavior at least as well as the complete
Purchase intentions (PI) then are considered initially model (Mazis, Ahtola, and Klippel 1975). This find-
to be a function of an individual's attitude toward a ing suggests using only performance perceptions as a
product or service [PItl = f(ATTtl)], but subject to measure of service quality.
modification due to the mediating effect on prior at- A study by Churchill and Surprenant (1982) also
titude of the satisfaction inherent in subsequent usages partially supports the efficacy of using only perfor-
[PIt2 = f(ATTt2) = f(ATTtl, SATt2]. Thus, Oliver mance perceptions to measure service quality. They
suggests that consumers form an attitude about a ser- conducted two experiments to examine the effects of
vice provider on the basis of their prior expectations expectations, performance, and disconfirmation on
about the performance of the firm, and this attitude satisfaction. The results of one experiment suggested
affects their intentions to purchase from that organi- that performance alone determines the satisfaction
zation. This attitude then is modified by the level of of subjects. Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins (1983)
(dis)satisfaction experienced by the consumer during contribute additional support for performance-only
subsequent encounters with the firm. The revised at- measures of attitude. Again using the "adequacy-
titude becomes the relevant input for determining a importance" model, they indicate that assimilation/
consumer's current purchase intentions. contrast theory suggests that consumers may raise or

Measuring Service Quality / 57

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 lower their performance beliefs on the basis of how FIGURE 1
closely perceived performance approximates expected Service Quality as Conceptualized by
performance. Thus, they suggest that including im- Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988)
portance weights and expectations only introduces re-
dundancy. From the results of a field experiment,
Bolton and Drew (1991a) also conclude that current
performance ratings strongly affect attitudes whereas
the effects of disconfirmation are generally insignifi-
cant and transitory. This study is particularly signif-
icant because the attitude examined is customers' per-
ceptions of the quality inherent in a service.
Thus, the conclusion of the satisfaction and atti-
tude literatures appears to be that (1) perceived service
quality is best conceptualized as an attitude, (2) the
"adequacy-importance" model is the most effective
"attitude-based" operationalization of service quality,
and (3) current performance adequately captures con-
sumers' perceptions of the service quality offered by
a specific service provider. In addition to the theo-
retical support for performance-based measures of
service quality, practitioners often measure the deter- constructed and whether the individual scale items ac-
minants of overall satisfaction/perceived quality by tually describe five separate service quality compo-
having customers simply assess the performance of nents is problematic. In fact, some empirical evidence
the company's business processes. Furthermore, the suggests that the proposed delineation of the five com-
performance-based approach may actually be more in ponents is not consistent when subjected to cross-
line with an antecedent/consequent conceptualiza- sectional analysis (Carman 1990). Specifically, Carman
tion: that is, judgments of service quality and satis- found that some of the items did not load on the same
faction appear to follow the evaluation of a service component when compared across different types of
provider's performance. The first objective of our study service providers. However, though the veracity of
is to examine these conclusions empirically by testing conceptualizing the SERVQUAL scale as consisting
a performance-based measure of service quality as an of the five distinct components identified by
alternative to the current disconfirmation-based
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) has been
SERVQUAL scale. questioned (Carman 1990), the validity of the 22 in-
dividual performance scale items that make up the
Operationalizing Service Quality SERVQUAL scale appears to be well supported both
by the procedures used to develop the items and by
The current measurement of perceived service qual- their subsequent use as reported in the literature (cf.
ity can be traced to the research of Parasuraman,Carman 1990). We therefore conclude that these 22
Zeithaml, and Berry. These authors originally iden- performance items adequately define the domain of
tified 10 determinants of service quality based on a
service quality and we use the same performance items
series of focus group sessions (1985). They subse-
to examine the proposed alternative to the SERVQUAL
quently developed SERVQUAL (1988), which recasts
scale and in the analyses of the relationships between
the 10 determinants into five specific components:
service quality, consumer satisfaction, and purchase
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and intentions.
empathy (Figure 1).
The basis for identifying these five components was
a factor analysis of the 22-item scale (see Appendix)
developed from focus groups and from the specific
Research Models and Propositions
industry applications undertaken by the authors (see
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985, 1988; andWe investigate four specific questions that correspond
Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1990 for a com-to the three research steps identified in the Methods
prehensive review). section. The first question is directed at the measure-
The scale development procedures employed ap-ment of the service quality construct. Specifically, the
pear to support the face validity of the 22 scale itemsability of the more concise performance-only scale
(individual questions) included in the scale, but thesuggested by the literature review (SERVPERF, equa-
issue of how the service quality measure should be tion 6) is compared with that of three alternatives:

58 / Journal of Marketing, July 1992

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIGURE 2 the model incorporating SERVPERF (model 2) will
The Structural Models
have a better fit (as measured by the chi square sta-
tistic and the measurement model's adjusted goodness
of fit) because the performance-only form is more
consistent with established theory (cf. Mazis, Ahtola,
and Klippel 1975) and hence the SERVPERF mea-
surement model should more closely approximate the
theoretical model identified in Figure 2.
The second objective of our study is to examine
the relationships between service quality, consumer
satisfaction, and purchase intentions. The following
112 three additional propositions identify the questions ad-
dressed in this part of the study.
MODEL 1 MODEL 2
P2: Customer satisfaction is an antecedent of perceived
l, = SERVQUAL 5, = SERVPERF service quality.
7II = Consumer Satisfaction ?71 = Consumer Satisfaction
72 = Overall Service Quality
P3: Consumer satisfaction has a significant impact on pur-
%72 = Overall Service Quality
chase intentions.
%73 = Purchase Intentions 73s = Purchase Intentions
P4: Perceived service quality has a significant impact on
purchase intentions.

The first question considered is the causal order

SERVQUAL (equation 4), weighted SERVQUAL of the perceived service quality-satisfaction relation-
(equation 5), and weighted SERVPERF (equation 7). ship (P2). This analysis is also based on a consider-
ation of the structural models identified in Figure 2.
Service Quality = (Performance - Expectations) (4)
Specifically, P2 proposes that the path (B21) showing
Service Quality = Importance* (Performance consumer satisfaction as an antecedent of service quality
should have a statistically significant (p - .05) LIS-
- Expectations) (5)
REL estimate whereas the estimate of the reverse path
Service Quality = (Performance) (6) (satisfaction as an outcome of service quality, B12)
should not be significant (cf. Bitner 1990; Bolton and
Service Quality = Importance* (Performance) (7)
Drew 1991a,b).
The first proposition provides the basis for our inves- The next question investigated is whether con-
tigation: sumers' level of satisfaction with a service provider
affects their purchase intentions toward that firm (P3).
P,: An unweighted performance-based measure of service
quality (unweighted SERVPERF) is a more appropri- Again, the structural models are used to investigate
ate basis for measuring service quality than this proposition. Specifically, in models that confirm
SERVQUAL, weighted SERVQUAL, or weighted (i.e., the theoretical model is not rejected), the LIS-
SERVPERF.
REL estimate for the path linking satisfaction and pur-
The evaluation P1 calls for an assessment of whether chase intention (B31) is examined to determine whether
the effect is significant (p < .05).
the addition of the importance weights suggested by
The final question addressed is whether con-
Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1990) improves
the ability of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales sumers' perceptions of service quality affect their pur-
chase intentions (P4). The investigation of this prop-
to measure service quality and a direct comparison of
osition is identical to that of P3 but the path of interest
the two measurement approaches. On the basis of the
findings by Bolton and Drew (199la), and the attitude is between service quality and purchase intentions (B32).

and satisfaction literatures reviewed previously, the

addition of importance weights is not expected to im-
prove either scale and the SERVPERF alternative is Methods
expected to outperform the SERVQUAL scale.
The structural models identified in Figure 2 are
used to further the consideration of the SERVQUAL Organization of the Research
and SERVPERF scales as well as to consider the three Step 1: Examining the dimensionality of SERVQUAL
remaining research questions. As discussed in the lit- In this step, the confirmatory factor analysis capabi
erature review, the SERVPERF scale appears to con- ities of LISREL VII were used to determine whether
form more closely to the implications of the satisfac- the 22 items that define the SERVQUAL scale have
tion and attitude literatures. Therefore, we propose that the same factor loading pattern for the firms investi-

Measuring Service Quality / 59

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
gated as was found by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and sumers at their residences by trained interviewers dur-
Berry (1988). To the extent that similar factor struc- ing a two-week period in the summer of 1988. The
tures are identified (see Figure 1), evidence of the re- sampling frame was the entire population of the city.
liability of the SERVQUAL scale is produced. If the Interviewers were instructed to solicit responses ran-
five-component structure is not confirmed, the OB- domly and were assigned city areas to prevent over-
LIMIN factor analysis procedure in SPSS-X and a re- lap.
liability analysis can be used to assess the dimen- Responses were gathered on the service quality of-
sionality and reliability of the items. fered by two firms in each of four industries: banking,
Step 2: Comparison of alternative measures of pest control, dry cleaning, and fast food. Because of
service quality. On the basis of the theoretical con- the length of the questionnaire, respondents were asked
cerns discussed previously, we assessed three alter- to evaluate only one firm. The sample size for each
natives to the SERVQUAL scale. Specifically, in this industry was: banking 188 (firm 1, 92 and firm 2, 96);
step we examined the original SERVQUAL scale pest control 175 (firm 1, 91 and firm 2, 84); dry
(equation 4), an importance-weighted SERVQUAL cleaning 178 (firm 1, 88 and firm 2, 90); fast food
189 (firm 1, 98 and firm 2, 91). The firms and in-
scale (equation 5), a performance-based approach to
dustries were chosen on the basis of the results of a
the measurement of service quality (SERVPERF,
equation 6), and an importance-weighted version of convenience survey suggesting that these were the four
service industries most familiar to the area's con-
the SERVPERF scale (equation 7). This examination
proceeded in two stages. First, the ability of each of sumers. The two firms chosen within each industry
the four scales to explain variation in service quality were those with the largest sales volume in the city
was assessed by regressing the individual items com- where the sample was drawn (for the banks, the num-
prising each of the alternative scales against a measure ber of depositors was used to qualify the firms in-
of the respondents' perceptions of the overall quality cluded). Respondents were screened to determine
inherent in the services offered by the eight firms in- whether they had used one of the service providers
cluded in the sample (see Appendix, variable 85). included in the study within the last 30 days. This
Second, each measure's theoretical support was screening ensured that the respondents were familiar
examined in an analysis of the structural models iden- with the firm whose services they were asked to eval-
uate.
tified in Figure 2. Specifically of interest were (1) the
degree of fit of the respective models and (2) the sig-
Measures
nificance of the effect on service quality attributed to
each of the alternative measures (i.e., the significance The measures needed for the study were expectation
of the path between the perceived service quality scale perceptions of performance, and importance measure
used and the overall measure of service quality, path to construct the four alternative measures of service
Y21) quality, a direct measure of service quality, a measure
Step 3: Analysis of relationship between service of consumer satisfaction, and a purchase intentions
quality, consumer satisfaction, and purchase inten- measure. The 22 expectation (see Appendix, variables
tion. The third step extended the research beyond the E,-E22) and performance (see Appendix, variables Pi-
question of which approach to the measurement of P22) items were taken directly from the SERVQUAL
service quality is the most appropriate. Here we con- scale (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). The
sidered (1) the causal order of the consumer satisfac- importance weights were adapted from the wording of
tion-service quality relationship, (2) the effect of con- the expectation and performance items included in the
sumer satisfaction on purchase intentions, and (3) the original SERVQUAL scale (see Appendix, variables
effect of service quality on purchase intentions. These I1-I22). The direct measure of service quality was based
relationships were also investigated through the anal- on responses to a 7-point semantic differential ques-
ysis of the structural models identified in Figure 2. tion (see Appendix, variable 85). In addition, self-report
Specifically, we investigated each relationship by ex- measures of consumer satisfaction and purchase in-
amining the significance of the LISREL VII estimated tentions were constructed similarly (see Appendix,
path coefficient that links the variables noted. variables 87 and 84, respectively).

The SampleResults
Data were Dimensionality,
gathered from personal Re
in
ducted in a Service
medium-sized city Quality M
in the south
States. A total of 660 usable questionna
Dimensionality and
tions answered) were gathered
examine random
the dimension

60 / Journal of Marketing, July 1992

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
scale (SERVQUAL) by means of a confirmatory fac- measures consistent with theoretically derived hy-
tor analysis. Table 1 gives the results of the LISREL potheses concerning the concepts (or constructs) that
VII-based analysis for each of the four types of ser- are being measured." They further suggest that the
vice firms (banks, pest control, dry cleaning, and fast process of construct validation is by definition theory-
food). These results suggest that the 5-component laden. Churchill (1979) suggests that convergent and
structure proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and discriminant validity should be assessed in investi-
Berry (1988) for their SERVQUAL scale (see Figure gations of construct validity. Convergent validity in-
1) is not confirmed in any of the research samples. volves the extent to which a measure correlates highly
Specifically, the chi square statistic universally indi- with other measures designed to measure the same
cates a poor fit between the theoretical and measure- construct. Therefore, we examined a correlation ma-
ment models for the 5-component structure. The ad- trix of all the items tested in models 1 and 2 (see Ta-
justed goodness-of-fit indices (AGFI) are also not ble 3). A high correlation between the items
indicative of a good fit as they range from .740 to SERVPERF, importance-weighted SERVPERF, and
.831. service quality indicates some degree of convergent
Because the 5-factor structure was not confirmed,validity. Discriminant validity involves the extent to
we decided to assess the unidimensionality of the 22 which a measure is novel and does not simply reflect
items. We performed a factor analysis of the some other variable. Churchill (1979) suggests as-
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales using the OB- sessing discriminant validity by determining whether
LIMIN oblique factor rotation procedure in SPSS-X. the correlation between two different measures of the
All of the items loaded predictably on a single factor same variable is higher than the correlation between
with the exception of item 19 (see Table 2), which the measure of that variable and those of any other
loaded very weakly in the analysis of the SERVQUAL variable. Again, an examination of the correlation
scale and had a negative loading for both scales. It matrix in Table 3 indicates discriminant validity of the
was therefore dropped and coefficient alpha for both research variables as the three service quality scales
scales and all subsamples (each industry) was recal- all correlate more highly with each other than they do
culated. As is indicated in Table 2, the reliability in
with other research variables (i.e., satisfaction and
every case (coefficient alpha in excess of .800) sug- purchase intentions). Hence, we suggest that the pro-
gests that both scales can be treated as unidimen- posed performance-based measures provide a more
sional. Thus, in the analysis that follows, the 21 re- construct-valid explication of service quality because
tained items are either summed or averaged (to develop of their content validity (i.e., use of importance weights
the four service quality scales in the LISREL VII and use of performance-based measures are arguably
analysis of the structural models) or they are consid- more theoretically sound approaches) and the evi-
ered as one composite set of individual measures (in dence of their discriminant validity.
the stepwise regression analysis).
Validity. The primary threat to the validity of Comparison of Alternative Measures of
the measures used in this study is construct validity. Service Quality (Step 2)
Carmines and Zeller (1979, p. 23) state, "[flunda-
mentally, construct validity is concerned with the ex- PI suggests that the unweighted SERVPERF scale
tent to which a particular measure relates to other should capture more of the variation in service quality
than any of the other identified alternatives
(SERVQUAL, weighted SERVQUAL, and weighted
SERVPERF). The stepwise regression analysis sum-
TABLE 1 marized in Table 4 affirms PI. In all of the four ser-
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Parameter vice industries examined, unweighted SERVPERF
Estimates for 5-Factor Conceptualization of explains more of the variation in the global measure
Service Quality of service quality (see Table 4).
Pest Dry Fast In addition, a comparison of the SERVQUAL and
Parameter Banks Control Cleaning Food weighted SERVQUAL scales (columns 1-4 and 5-8
Chi square 308.60 486.16 402.60 364.16 of Table 4) indicates that the unweighted SERVQUAL
d.f. 204 204 204 204
scale explains more of the variation in service quality
p .000 .000 .000 .000
GFIa .863 .790 .819 .849 in three of the four industries (the exception being dry
AGFIb .831 .740 .776 .813 cleaning). We therefore decided to use only the un-
RMSRC .309 .466 .381 .515 weighted SERVPERF and SERVQUAL scales in the
"Goodness of fit. structural analysis of the relationships between these
bAdjusted goodness of fit. scales, service quality, consumer satisfaction, and
cRoot mean square residual.
purchase intentions because they arguably represent

Measuring Service Quality / 61

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 2
Factor Analysis of 22 Individual Dimensions of Service Quality
SERVQUAL SERVPERF
Pest Dry Fast Pest Dry Fast
Variable Banks Control Cleaning Food Banks Control Cleaning Food

V1 .396 .697 .577 .181 .480 .820 .692 .408

V2 .397 .368 .492 .249 .463 .652 .614 .458
V3 .477 .523 .536 .339 .557 .842 .642 .499
V4 .381 .319 .398 .055 .485 .703 .640 .384
V5 .781 .741 .736 .543 .804 .831 .774 .572
V6 .728 .753 .798 .543 .726 .828 .760 .683
V7 .826 .837 .805 .748 .822 .891 .856 .669
V8 .791 .832 .789 .679 .799 .873 .785 .679
V9 .833 .694 .654 .380 .788 .835 .626 .349
V10 .346 .467 .209 .325 .355 .532 .281 .136
V11 .568 .611 .358 .657 .640 .712 .483 .607
V12 .522 .622 .499 .706 .631 .706 .539 .672
V13 .500 .556 .392 .706 .623 .789 .538 .660
V14 .572 .622 .730 .409 .685 .785 .771 .550
V15 .817 .676 .762 .595 .815 .788 .836 .665
V16 .573 .764 .740 .641 .638 .793 .803 .689
V17 .647 .608 .673 .544 .688 .702 .666 .518
V18 .535 .563 .472 .412 .620 .762 .483 .429
V19 -.337 -.298 -.165 .027 -.677 -.769 -.615 -.474
V20 .459 .502 .399 .422 .580 .685 .490 .485
V21 .502 .571 .522 .464 .552 .670 .703 .573
V22 .272 .420 .399 .156 .345 .598 .403 .280
Eigenvalue 7.472 8.229 7.437 5.194 9.037 12.651 9.378 6.408
% of variation 34.8% 37.4% 33.8% 23.6% 41.1% 57.5% 42.6% 29.1%
Coefficient alphaa .890 .901 .900 .849 .925 .964 .932 .884
"Item V19 excluded.

TABLE 3
Correlation Coefficients for Structural Models in Figure 2
Weighted Weighted Overall
SERVQ- SERVP- service Purchase
SERVQUAL UAL SERVPERF ERF quality Satisfaction intention
SERVQUAL 1.0000
Weighted
SERVQUAL .9787 1.0000
SERVPERF .8100 .7968 1.0000
Weighted
SERVPERF .6589 .6307 .9093 1.0000
Overall service
quality .5430 .5394 .6012 .5572 1.0000
Satisfaction .5605 .5559 .5978 .5513 .8175 1.0000
Purchase
intention .3534 .3613 .3647 .3486 .5272 .5334 1.0000

the best of each of the two alternative

service quality (SERVPERFconceptuali-
and SERVQUAL, re-
zations of service quality. spectively). Models 1 and 2 are identical with the ex-
ception that SERVQUAL is used to measure service
quality in model 1 whereas SERVPERF is used in
Relationships Between Service Quality,
model 2. The models conceptualize a nonrecursive
Customer Satisfaction, and Purchase
("two-way") relationship between service quality and
Intentions (Step 3)
satisfaction in order to test simultaneously the effects
Figure 2 identifies the two models used to investigatehypothesized by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry
P2, P3, and P4 and to further the comparison of the(1985, 1988) (service quality is an antecedent of cus-
performance- and disconfirmation-based measures of tomer satisfaction) and by Bitner (1990) and Bolton

62 / Journal of Marketing, July 1992

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 4
The Variation Explained by the Alternative Measures of Service Quality
SERVQUAL Weighted SERVQUAL SERVPERF Weighted SERVPERF
Pest Dry Fast Pest Dry Fast Pest Dry Fast Pest Dry Fast
Banking Control Cleaning Food Banking Control Cleaning Food Banking
V1i
V2 .164b .157b .256C
V3 .143a
V4 .147a .248C
V5 .194a -.227a
V6 .284c -.200a .307C .255c .222b -.1868 .277b .282C .350 .380C .267b .240b
V7 .478C .452c .268b .234b .351b .407c .437c .242b .323C
V8 .594C .614C .304b .346c
V9 -.216a -.248b -.131a -.231b -.195
V10 .193b
V11 .158a .268c .256C
V12 .253c .242C
V13 .141a .152a .194b
V14 .352C .329 -.153a .130a
V15 .191a
V16 .235b .187b .318C .175a .349c .165a .189a
V17 -.219b .161a
V18
V19 -.127a -.163a -.135a -.164b
V20 .158b .141a .181b
V21 .189b .167b
V22 1.42 .157a
R2 .465112 .36515 .30747 .41534 .44813 .36316 .36958 .38332 .47895 .38760 .44675 .47585 .40333 .33726 .43166 .46718

Where: a = p < .05.

b = p < .01.
c = p < .001.
'VI to V22 are the alternative scale items of service quality (see Appendix A, variables P1 to P22). Entries in the cells repre
correlation coefficients. All nonsignificant coefficients are ommitted.
2Numbers in each cell are adjusted R2s.

and Drew (1991a,b) (service quality is an outcome ofpurchase intentions in any of the samples (see Table
customer satisfaction). In addition, the model sug- 5, model 2, path 332). Thus, P2 and P3 both receive
gests that both service quality and satisfaction affect
strong support from the results, though the direction
purchase intentions. of the effect observed in the consideration of P2 is the
However, before considering P2, P3, and P4, opposite
we of that proposed. The analysis of P4 afforded
assessed the fit of the two respective models to theno support for the proposed effect.
data (see Table 5). Model 1 (SERVQUAL) had a good
fit in two of the four industries (banking and fast food)
whereas model 2 (SERVPERF) had an excellent fit in
Discussion
all four industries. Because the only difference in the
We investigated three main questions:
two models is the measure of service quality used (either
SERVQUAL or SERVPERF), these results were in- * How should service quality be conceptualized and me
terpreted as additional support for the superiority of sured?

the SERVPERF approach to the measurement of ser- * What is the causal order of the relationship between ser-
vice quality. vice quality and consumer satisfaction?
Because of this superiority, we used model 2 to * What impacts do service quality and consumer satisfac-
tion have on purchase intentions?
assess the strength of the relationships between ser-
vice quality, consumer satisfaction, and purchase in- In answer to the first question, the literature re-
tention. This analysis suggests that (1) service quality view and empirical results both suggest that service
has a significant (p < .05) effect on consumer satis- quality should be conceptualized and measured as an
faction in all four samples (see Table 5, model 2, path attitude. The literature clearly supports the perfor-
132), (2) consumer satisfaction has a significant (p < mance-only (SERVPERF) approach. In the empirical
.05) effect on purchase intentions in all four samples analysis, the first step calls into question the efficacy
(see Table 5, model 2, path 331), and (3) service qual- of the 5-component conceptualization of service qual-
ity does not have a significant (p < .05) impact on ity offered by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry

Measuring Service Quality / 63

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 5
Standardized Parameter Estimates for Causal Models

Banking Pest Control Dry Cleaning Fast Food

LISREL LISREL LISREL LISREL
Parameter Estimate T-Value Estimate T-Value Estimate T-Value Estimate T-Value

SERVQUAL Model (1)

B21 -1.796 -1.512 -2.810 -1.341 -8.398 -.408 -.055 -.300
B12 1.113 14.794 1.099 10.620 1.103 15.256 .904 10.566
B31 .668 3.712 .646 4.247 .836 4.598 .343 2.774
B32 .280 1.475 .301 2.033 .099 .542 .296 2.187
Y21 2.417 2.226 2.289 1.746 7.157 .452 .812 5.235
Chi square .000 (p = .972) 5.090 (p = .024) 4.060 (p = .044) 6.020 (p = .140)
AGFI 1.000 .863 .890 .838
RMS .001 .068 .061 .063
SMC-Y, .664 .465 .750 .647
-Y2 -3.482 -7.309 -58.200 .254
-Y3 .325 .326 .409 .260

SERVPERF Model (2)

B21 -1.353 -1.595 -1.377 -1.944 -2.904 -.989 -.141 -.845
B12 1.109 14.156 1.006 11.793 1.065 17.584 .944 12.787
B31 .550 3.124 .659 4.323 .837 4.598 .362 2.924
B32 .374 1.979 .285 1.926 .098 .535 .282 2.069
Y21 2.154 2.585 1.683 3.202 3.644 1.300 1.179 6.122
Chi square .080 (p = .781) .220 (p = .639) 3.290 (p = .070) .230 (p = .629)
AGFI .998 .994 .910 .994
RMS .009 .012 .044 .010
SMC-Y, .657 .521 .768 .652
-Y2 -2.298 -1.886 -7.799 .278
-Y3 .305 .325 .412 .266

(1988). The second step

intentions indi
in
scale explains does
more of
not the
have v
than does SERVQUAL.
dustries. Both
From
the analysis Table
of the 5, satisf
structur
Table 5, models 1
more and 2)
consistentsug
conceptualization is
service in fact
quality
a satisfaction paradigm rath
and (2) the empirical analys
suggests that the SERVQU
and Table 5, Conclusi
model 1) conf
four industries. Implica
Thus, the wei
supports the use
The of perform
major con
service quality.
ing's current
The second question
service invest
qualit
der of the satisfaction-ser
present empiric
Much of the recent
service literatu
quality
isfaction is an antecedent
performance of
1990; Bolton and Drew
efficient 1991
in c
ysis of the research
it model
reduces by i
be the case and provides
measured em
(44 i
tion that perceived service
structural mo q
isfaction as proposed
riority byof Par
th
Berry (1985, the
1988).
model tha
The third question pertains
confirmed (mt
quality and satisfaction
failure of on
th
Figure 2 and confirm
Table 5). The
(see Ta
estimates (model
based2; see
measure Tab
faction has a significant
The remainin (p

64 / Journal of Marketing, July

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
are essential managerial issues. The results suggest that vice sector simply underscores the need for managers
service quality is an antecedent of consumer satisfac- and researchers alike to increase the attention directed
tion and that consumer satisfaction exerts a stronger at the important issues in the marketing of services.
influence on purchase intentions than does service
quality. Thus, managers may need to emphasize total
customer satisfaction programs over strategies center-
Limitations
ing solely on service quality. Perhaps consumers do
not necessarily buy the highest quality service; con- In designing our study, we attempted to minimize its
venience, price, or availability may enhance satisfac- limitations. However, generalizations beyond the four
tion while not actually affecting consumers' percep- specific service industries investigated are tenuous.
tions of service quality. Future studies should incorporate multiple measures
Finally (see Table 4), the results from step 1 also of all of the constructs examined. Limiting the study
suggest that the scale items that define service quality to the two highest market share firms in each category
in one industry may be different in another. Perhaps may also have affected the variable distributions and,
high involvement services such as health care or fi- hence, the importance of the predictors. In addition,
nancial services have different service quality defi- with the possible exception of banking, the services
nitions than low involvement services such as fast food investigated are all low involvement service cate-
or dry cleaning. Managers and researchers therefore gories. Perceived quality may play a bigger role (in
must consider the individual dimensions of service comparison with satisfaction) in high involvement sit-
quality when making cross-sectional comparisons.uations, where a firm may need to do more than sim-
ply meet customers' "minimum requirements." Fi-
Managers should also be able to adjust their marketing
strategies more effectively when the full set of indi-
nally, the number of constructs other researchers could
vidual scale items are considered. add to the models examined is probably unlimited.

Implications for Future Research Appendix

Our research has only begun to address the many is-
sues that are important in the management of services.Expectations
The findings undoubtedly raise more questions thanThis survey deals with your opinions of _ services. Please
they answer, but the questions we address-how theshow the extent to which you think institutions offering tele-
service quality construct should be measured and how phone services should possess the features described in each
service quality is related to consumer satisfaction and
statement. Do this by using the scale presented below. If you
strongly agree that these institutions should possess a feature,
purchase intentions-are arguably among the most
place a seven on the line preceding the statement. If you strongly
important concerns in services marketing.
disagree that these institutions should possess a feature, place
Future studies should consider other attitude-based
a one on the line. If your feelings are not strong, place one of
conceptualizations and extend beyond the four service
the numbers between one and seven on the line to properly
reflect the actual strength of your feelings. There are no right
industries sampled in our study. The nature of the re-
lationship between consumer satisfaction and serviceor wrong answers-all we are interested in is a number that
best shows your Expectations about institutions offering bank-
quality appears to be an area in great need of addi- ing services.
tional exploration. Investigations of the roles of sat-
isfaction and service quality in predicting market share 1 ---2 - - - 3---4---5---6 - - - 7
also appear well directed and may enhance our un- STRONGLY STRONGLY
DISAGREE AGREE
derstanding of the role of these constructs in the for-
mation of purchase intentions. The failure of service - El. They should ha
quality to affect purchase intentions consistently should technology.
be a concern for both managers and researchers. Per- -E2. Their physical facilities should be visually ap-
pealing.
haps consumers do not always buy the best quality
E3. Their employees should be well dressed and
service. Might they instead purchase on the basis of
appear neat.
their assessment of the value of a service? Perhaps
E4. The appearance of the physical facilities of these
future research should develop measures of service institutions should be in keeping with the type
performance that utilize other criteria, such as value, of services provided.
for determining whether a service is purchased. Fi- -E5. When these institutions promise to do some-
nally, our study was specific to a service context. thing by a certain time, they should do so.
Generalizing the results to goods industries may not - E6. When customers have problems, these institu-
be possible. The ever-increasing magnitude of the ser- tions should be sympathetic and reassuring.

Measuring Service Quality / 65

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 E7. These institutions should be dependable. P9. XYZ keeps its records accurately.
__ E8. P10. XYZ
They should provide their services at the timedoes not tell its customers exactly
they promise to do so. when services will be performed.
P11. You do not receive prompt service from XYZ
E9. They should keep their records accurately.
_ E10. They shouldn't be expected to tell their cus- employees.
P12. Employees of XYZ are not always will-
tomers exactly when services will be per-
formed. ing to help customers.
P13.
El 1. It is not realistic for customers to expect Employees of XYZ are too busy to re-
prompt
service from employees of these institutions. spond to customer requests promptly.
_ E12. Their employees don't always have to P14.
beYou can trust employees of XYZ
will-
ing to help customers. P15. You can feel safe in your transactions with XYZ
_ E13. It is okay if they are too busy to respond to 's employees.
customer requests promptly. P16. Employees of XYZ are polite.
E14. Customer should be able to trust employees of
P17. Employees get adequate support from XYZ
these institutions.
to do their jobs well.
El15. Customers should be able to feel safe in their
P18. XYZ does not give you individual atten-
transactions with these institutions' employees. tion.
__E16. Their employees should be polite. P19. Employees of XYZ do not give you per-
_ E17. Their employees should get adequate support sonal attention.
from these institutions to do their jobs well.
P20. Employees of XYZ do not know what your
E18. These institutions should not be expected needs are.
to give
customers individual attention.
P21. XYZ does not have your best interests at
E19. Employees of these institutions cannot be ex- heart.
pected to give customers personal attention. P22. XYZ does not have operating hours con-
E20. It is unrealistic to expect employess to know venient to all their customers.
what the needs of their customers are.

E21. It is unrealistic to expect these institutions to

have their customers' best interests at heart. Importance
The following set of statements relate to your feelings about
E22. They shouldn't be expected to have operating
hours convenient to all their customers. the importance of each feature described in your decision
to purchase services. A seven means you consider the
feature very important in deciding where to purchase banking
Performance services, a one means it is very unimportant. You may place
any of the numbers shown on the scale below beside each fea-
The following set of statements relate to your feelings about
XYZ _. For each statement, please show the extent to whichture to indicate its importance to you. There are no right or
you believe XYZ has the feature described by the state-wrong answers-all we are interested in is your perception of
ment. Once again, placing a seven on the line means you how important each feature is to you in your decision where
to purchase banking services.
strongly agree that XYZ has that feature, and a one means you
strongly disagree. You may use any of the numbers in the mid-
1 ---2---3--- ---5---6---7
dle as well to show how strong your feelings are. There are
VERY VERY
no right or wrong answers-all we are interested in is a num-
UNIMPORTANT IMPORTANT
ber that best shows your perceptions about XYZ whether you
use their service or not.
I1. Up-to-date equipment.
1---2 - - - 3 - - - 4---5 - - - 6---7 12. Physical facilities that ar
STRONGLY STRONGLY 13. Employees that are well dr
DISAGREE AGREE 14. Physical facilities that ap
with the type of service pr
P1. XYZ has up-to-date equipment.
P2. XYZ 's physical facilities are visually ap- 15. When something is prom
pealing. doing it.

P3. XYZ 's employees are well dressed and I6. When there is a problem, being sympathetic and
appear neat. reassuring.

P4. The appearance of the physical facilities of 17. Dependability.

18. Providing service
XYZ is in keeping with the type of ser-
vice provided. 19. Accurate k record
P5. When XYZ promises to do something by 10. Telling the custom
a certain time, it does so. will be performed
P6. When you have problems, XYZ is sym- I11. Receiving prompt service.
pathetic and reassuring.
112. Employees who are always willing to help cus-
P7. XYZ is dependable. tomers.

P8. XYZ provides its services at the time it 113. Employees who are not too busy to respond to
promises to do so. customer request promptly.

66 / Journal of Marketing, July 1992

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 114. Employees who are trustworthy. (Future Purchase Behavior)
115. The feeling that you are safe when conducting
(84) In the next year, my use of XYZ will be
transactions with the firm's employees.
116. Employees who are polite. 1 ---2 -- -3--4 -- -5-6 ---7
117. Adequate support from the firmNOT AT ALL VERY FREQUENT
so employees
can do their job well.
(Overall Quality)
118. Individual attention.

119. Employees who give you personal attention.(85) The quality of XYZ _'s services is
120. Employees who know what your needs are. 1 --- --- ---4---5---6---7
121. A firm which has your best interests at heart. VERY POOR EXCELLENT
122. Convenient operating hours.
(Satisfaction)

Other Measures (87) My feelings towards XYZ _ 's services can best be
described as
The following set of statements relate to your feelings about
XYZ _. Please respond by circling the number which best 1 ---2---3---4---5---6---7
reflects your own perceptions. VERY UNSATISFIED VERY SATISFIED

REFERENCES
Bateson, John E. (1989), Managing Services Marketing. Lon- David A. (1983), "Quality on the Line," Harvard
Garvin,
don: Dryden Press. Business Review, 61 (September-October), 65-73.
Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), "Evaluating Service Encounters: The
Ginzberg, Eli and George Vojta (1981), "The Service Sector
Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Re-
of the U.S. Economy," Scientific American, 244 (March),
sponses," Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82. 31-9.
Blackiston, G. Howland (1988), "Service Industries: A Re-
naissance in Quality," Executive Excellence, 5 (9), 9-10. Gronroos, Christian (1990), Service Management and Mar
Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991a), "A Longitudinal keting: Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Com
Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer petition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Attitudes," Journal of Marketing, 55 (January), 1-9. Heskett, James L., W. Earl Sasser, Jr., and Christopher W
and (1991b), "A Multistage Model of L. Hart (1990), Service Breakthroughs: Changing the Rule
Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value," of the Game. New York: The Free Press.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 375-84. Koepp, Stephen (1987), "Pul-eeze! Will Somebody Help Me
Brown, Stephen W. and Teresa A. Swartz (1989),Time "A Gap
(February 2), 28-34.
Analysis of Professional Service Quality," Journal of Mar-
Langevin, Roger C. (1988), "Service Quality: Essential I
keting, 53 (April), 92-8.
gredients," Review of Business, 9 (3), 3-5.
Carman, James M. (1990), "Consumer Perceptions of Service
Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions," Mazis, Michael B., Olli T. Ahtola, and R. Eugene Klipp
Journal of Retailing, 66 (1), 33-55. (1975), "A Comparison of Four Multi-Attribute Models i
Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979), the Prediction of Consumer Attitudes," Journal of Con
"Reli-
sumer
ability and Validity Assessment," Sage Publications Series Research, 2 (June), 38-52.
Number 07-017. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Oliver, Richard L. (1980), "A Cognitive Model of the Ant
Inc. cedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions,
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979),"A Paradigm for Developing Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-9.
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Mar- Parasuraman, A., Valarie Zeithaml, and Leonard Berry (1985
keting Research, 16 (February), 64-73. "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implica
and Carol Surprenant (1982), "An Investigation Into tions for Future Research," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Fall
the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction," Journal of 41-50.
Marketing Research, 19 (November), 491-504.
,and (1988), "SERVQUAL:
Cohen, Joel B., Martin Fishbein, and Olli T. Ahtola (1972),
"The Nature and Uses of Expectancy-Value Models in A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consum
tions of Service Quality," Journal of Retailing,
Consumer Attitude Research," Journal of Marketing Re- 12-40.
search, 9 (November), 456-60.
Cound, Dana M. (1988), "What Corporate Executives Think Rathmell, John M. (1966), "What Is Meant by Services?
About Quality: The Results of the 1987 Gallup Survey," Journal of Marketing, 30 (October), 32-6.
Quality Progress, 21 (2), 20-3. Rudie, Mary J. and H. Brant Wansley (1985), "The Merrill
Cravens, David W. (1988), "The Marketing of Quality," In- Lynch Quality Program," in Services Marketing in a
centive, 162 (11), 26-34. Changing Environment, Thomas Bloch, Gregory Upah, and
Crosby, Philip B. (1979), Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Valarie A. Zeithaml, eds. Chicago: American Marketing
Quality Certain. New York: American Library. Association.

Measuring Service Quality / 67

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sherden, William A. (1988), "Gaining the Service Quality Using Experience-Based Norms," Journal of Marketing
Advantage," Journal of Business Strategy, 9 (2), 45-8. Research, 20 (August), 296-304.
Thompson, Phillip, Glenn DeSouza, and Bradley T. Gale Zeithaml, Valarie A., A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry
(1985), The Strategic Measurement of Quality. Cambridge, (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer
MA: The Strategic Planning Institute, PIMSLETTER, No. Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free
33. Press.
Woodruff, Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte, and Roger L. Jen-
kins (1983), "Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Reprint No. JM563103

* You can have

it all...
What you're reading now plus
the important articles in 800 other business and
management magazines, in a matter of
minutes.

The ABI/INFORMTM business database and your

computer give you access to article summaries
from magazines worldwide.

Call the publishers of ABI/INFORM at 800/626-

2823, today

68 / Journal of Marketing, July 1992

This content downloaded from

14.139.212.244 on Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:04:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms