Search results

The purpose is to investigate, the difference between SERVQUAL and SERVPERF's predictive validity of service quality.

Data from 17 studies containing 42 effect sizes of the relationships between SERVQUAL or SERVPERF with overall service quality (OSQ) are meta‐analyzed.

Overall, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF are equally valid predictors of OSQ. Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to the measurement context improves its predictive validity; conversely, the predictive validity of SERVPERF is not improved by context adjustments. In addition, measures of services quality gain predictive validity when used in: less individualistic cultures, non‐English speaking countries, and industries with an intermediate level of customization (hotels, rental cars, or banks).

No study, that were using non‐adapted scales were conducted outside of the USA making it impossible to disentangle the impact of scale adaptation vs contextual differences on the moderating effect of language and culture. More comparative studies on the usage of adapted vs non‐adapted scales outside the USA are needed before settling this issue meta‐analytically.

SERVQUAL scales require to be adapted to the study context more so than SERVPERF. Owing to their equivalent predictive validity the choice between SERVQUAL or SERVPERF should be dictated by diagnostic purpose (SERVQUAL) vs a shorter instrument (SERVPERF).

Because of the high statistical power of meta‐analysis, these findings could be considered as a major step toward ending the debate whether SERVPERF is superior to SERVQUAL as an indicator of OSQ.

There have been numerous studies on measures of service quality, such as SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, in a variety of contexts, but the validity of these instruments in Asian markets is under‐researched. The present study was focused in South Korea and data on expectations, perceptions and importance measures were collected from 153 bank customers. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the measurement scales lacked validity with the South Korean sample, and principal component analyses revealed that SERVQUAL and SERVPERF were not uni‐dimensional. An amended SERVQUAL type scale showed three factors similar to the original SERVQUAL analysis, and an amended SERVPERF type scale showed two factors, with most of the original items converged on different conceptual dimensions.

With an increasing air cargo demand in the global air cargo transport industry, not only domestic airlines but also foreign carriers are actively investing in the air cargo service sector and trying to provide a differentiated service in order to gain a competitive advantage. There are a variety of service quality models available but most research to date has not found an optimal model for the air cargo service sector.

Using questionnaire data collected from air freight forwarders in Korea with respect to the air cargo service provided by Korean Air, Asiana Airlines, and foreign carriers(JAL or China Eastern), this paper compares four models in measuring the service quality in the air cargo sector and identifies the best model. We then analyze the weakness of each airline’s service operation and make suggestions for improvement.

For demonstration analysis, the survey of domestic air cargo forwarders revealed that Reliability>Responsiveness> Supply ability>Security in important order in air cargo service quality dimension. In the context of this paper, we considered four models-unweighted SERVQUAL, unweighted SERVPERF, weighted SERVQUAL, and weighted SERVPERF–for our investigation into which is the most suitable model in the air cargo service sector with testing of goodness of fit by three criteria. Our results indicate that the most suitable model for the air cargo service sector is the weighted SERVPERF model.

This paper aims to test and compare the relative efficacy of three measuring instruments of service quality (namely Higher Education PERFormance (HEdPERF), SERVPERF and the moderating scale of HEdPERF‐SERVPERF) within a higher education setting. The objective was to determine which instrument had the superior measuring capability in terms of unidimensionality, reliability, validity and explained variance.

After a pilot test, data were collected from students in two public universities, one private university and three private colleges in Malaysia between January and March 2004, by the “contact person” route. From a total of 560 questionnaires, 381 were usable: a response rate of 68.0 per cent. This sample of nearly 400,000 students in Malaysian tertiary institutions was in line with the generalized scientific guideline for sample size decisions. Data were subjected to regression analysis.

A modified five‐factor structure of HEdPERF is put forward as the most appropriate scale for the higher education sector.

Since this study only examined the respective utilities of each instrument within a single industry, any suggestion that the HEdPERF is generally superior would still be premature. Nonetheless, the current findings do provide some important insights into how these instruments of service quality compare with one another.

The single dominant factor on this study is “access”, which has clear implications for institutions' marketing strategies.

This is believed to be the first study of its kind carried out among consumers of the higher education service.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the performance of five alternative measures of service quality in the high education sector – service quality (SERVQUAL), importance‐weighted SERVQUAL, service performance (SERVPERF), importance‐weighted SERVPERF, and higher education performance (HEdPERF).

Data were collected by means of a structured questionnaire containing perception items enhanced from the SERVPERF and HEdPERF scales and expectation items from the SERVQUAL scale, modified to fit into the higher education (HE) sector. The first draft of the questionnaire was subject to a pilot testing through a focus group and an expert evaluation. Data were gathered from a sample of 360 students of a Portuguese University in Lisbon. Scales were compared in terms of unidimensionality, reliability, validity and explained variance.

It can be concluded that SERVPERF and HEdPERF present the best measurement capability, but it is not possible to identify which one is the best.

Since the study only examined the measurement capabilities of the five instruments at a single faculty, the collection of more data in other institutions is required in order to provide more general results.

The current results do make available some important insights into how the five alternative instruments of service quality in an HE context compare with one another.

The paper attempts to develop insights into comparative evaluations of five measuring instruments of service quality in an HE setting.

The choice between SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics for service quality measurement is subjective and the research literature lacks evidence on whether these instruments differ in their outcomes significantly or concur with each other. Hence, empirical investigation regarding the concurrence or difference of the two instruments is the purpose of this paper.

The research is qualitative (meta‐analysis of service quality literature) and quantitative (application of standard statistical procedures to test hypothesis). A pilot test of 35 students was conducted followed by a stratified random sampling of 84 students each for SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. Data collection was through a self‐administered questionnaire.

The empirical study proves that there is a significant difference in the outcomes of the two metrics. The implications of the study are based on the combined use of the two instruments. The research identified that tangibles and reliability are the two dimensions of higher service quality satisfaction, whereas empathy and assurance are the dimensions of least satisfaction in a higher education sector.

Even though the sample size is adequate, the study outcome cannot be generalized completely as it is based on a research focused on a specific service.

The paper gives a methodical approach to apply both SERVQUAL and SERVPERF metrics and draw implications on the combined basis. The strengths and weaknesses thus identified would facilitate the service providers in implementing total quality management.

Social responsibility is a key issue to be addressed by higher educational institutes and the implications of this research contribute to it strengthening.

Research inferences are based on the primary data obtained from service receivers of higher education and the inferences would add value to the body of knowledge of service quality literature, as the two most prominent instruments of service quality are empirically investigated for concurrence.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically test a new industry‐specific scale, HEdPERF (Higher Education PERFormance) to capture the authentic determinants of service quality within higher education sector.

The primary goal of this research was to test and compare the relative efficacy of HEdPERF against SERVPERF in order to determine which instrument had the superior measuring capability.

In terms of unidimensionality, reliability, and validity, HEdPERF explained variance within the higher education setting better in comparison to SERVPERF.

Since this study only examined the respective utilities of each instrument within a single industry, in only one national setting, any suggestion that the HEdPERF is generally superior would still be premature.

The current findings do provide some important insights into how the instruments of service quality compare with one another, in a typical higher education context.

An attempt is made in the paper, to develop critical insights into comparative evaluation of service quality measurement instruments.

This study examines specific dimensions of the performance‐only measurement of service quality (SERVPERF) as determinants of consumer satisfaction and subsequent behavioral intentions associated with banking services in mainland China. Empirical support for the predictive ability of context‐dependent service quality dimensions is presented. Our results extend and enhance the validity of the performance‐only approach to service quality through the focus on the multidimensional facets of the SERVPERF scale, a direct link between context‐dependent dimensions of service quality and consumer satisfaction, and its application in an international setting. Strategic issues in managing service quality with retail banks in the Chinese market are identified and discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the best measure among several alternatives (SERVQUAL, weighted SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, weighted SERVPERF) and develop a scale which healthcare providers can use for measurement of healthcare service quality.

The study involved two phases. The first phase was through a series of in-depth interviews with experts and patients followed by a pilot study. Subsequently, the second phase involved a quantitative phase through surveys with 384 patients. Alternative measures were analyzed using coefficient (Cronbach) α, composite reliability, factor analysis and logistic regression analysis.

Findings confirmed “Weighted SERVPERF” using an interactive methodology as the most appropriate for measurement of healthcare service quality.

Using the model and scale developed, healthcare providers will be able to measure healthcare service quality and identify areas of shortfall and act accordingly to improve delivery through allocating resources in service areas that would generate the greatest returns in customer satisfaction. Enhancing satisfaction will ultimately generate patient loyalty and positive recommendation behavior.

The SERVPERF (for Service Performance) and the HEdPERF (for Higher Education Performance) are two questionnaires for collecting customer/student feedback on service quality that have been tested and used mainly in non‐Chinese contexts. The purpose of this paper is to adapt and initially validate a Chinese translation of these two instruments for application in the context of post‐secondary education in Hong Kong.

Given that a Chinese translation of the two questionnaires concerned has not been tested in this new response‐context, an exploratory approach was adopted by examining the psychometric properties of the SERVPERF scales and the HEdPERF scales via scale alpha, item‐correlation analysis and exploratory factor analysis using valid responses collected from 271 students.

The alpha values of both the SERVPERF scales and the HEdPERF scales are good or acceptable, with the latter better than the former in general. In the present study, the validity of employing the SERVPERF in the targeted response‐context is supported as all the five SERVERF dimensions have been cleanly identified in the exploratory factor analysis. However, only three out of the five HEdPERF dimensions were identified in the present study, and two of the identified dimensions are complex concepts with each of them exhibited as two factors in the exploratory factor analysis, casting doubt on the appropriateness of the direct employment of the HEdPERF in the targeted response‐context for the measurement of service quality.

The students who participated in the present study were pursuing Project Yi Jin, which was a special one‐year post‐secondary programme in Hong Kong.

Taking both reliability and validity issues into consideration, this initial investigation indicates that the SERVPERF may be a more appropriate instrument than the HEdPERF for supporting quality assurance in the context of Hong Kong post‐secondary education, especially when multiple questionnaires will be used for collecting students' feedback on their various experiences at different levels, where it is important for these questionnaires to be, as much as possible, simple and non‐overlapping.