Leading Works in the Area of Service Quality Measurement

Leading Works in the area of Service Quality Measurement

Ding, D. X., Hu, P. J.-H., & Sheng, O. R. (2011). e-SELFQUAL: A scale for measuring online self-service quality. Journal of Business Research, 64(5), 508-515.
Retrieved from https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0148296310000925/1-s2.0-S0148296310000925-main.pdf?_tid=dcc80e90-0e37-11e8-93ca-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1518249553_177604745071a7b7f01d3fec43ca9278

Ghotbabadi, A. R., Feiz, S., & Baharun, R. (2015, February). Service Quality Measurements: A Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 5(2).
Retrieved from http://hrmars.com/hrmars_papers/Service_Quality_Measurements_A_review.pdf

Jain, S. K., & Gupta, G. (2004, June). Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF Scales. Vikalpa, 29(2), 25-37.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228778534_Measuring_Service_Quality_Servqual_vs_Servperf_Scales

Kang, G.-D., & James, J. (2004). Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grönroos’s service quality model. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 14(4), 266-277.
Retrieved from http://www.ida.liu.se/~steho87/und/htdd01/1080140401.pdf

Munhurrun, P. R., Bhiwajee, S. D., & Naidoo, P. (2010). Service Quality in the Public Service. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 3(1).
Retrieved from http://observgo.uquebec.ca/observgo/fichiers/95792_PSP%201.pdf

Saravanan, R., & Rao, K. S. (2007). Measurement of Service Quality from the Customer's Perspective – An Empirical Study. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 18(4), 435-449.
Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14783360701231872?needAccess=true

Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service quality models: a review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 913-949.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235286421_Service_quality_models_A_review

Tazreen, S. (2012, Jul-Aug). An Empirical Study of Servqual as a Tool for Service Quality. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSRJBM), 1(5), 09-19. Retrieved from http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jbm/papers/vol1-issue5/C0150919.pdf

Alternative Models for Measuring Service Quality

There have been a number of researches done over the past and current decade concerning service quality measurement; some prominent works out of which have been listed in the previous section. Following the introduction of the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1985), many scholars have attempted to replicate and refute its structure and conceptualization. Below is a summary of some such models proposed by researchers which differ in either design or methodology or both from the SERVQUAL models proposed earlier.

Grönroos’ Service Quality Model

The study empirically examines the European perspective (i.e. Grönroos’ model) suggesting that service quality consists of three dimensions, technical, functional and image, and that image functions as a filter in service quality perception. While the contemporary studies on service quality seemingly focused on the process of service delivery, additional aspects such as the three dimensions: functional (or process) dimension, technical (or outcome) dimension, and image too need to be considered.

[pic 1]

Figure 1: How the Service Quality Model works?

Grönroos (1982) identified two service quality dimensions, the technical aspect (“what” service is provided) and the functional aspect (“how” the service is provided). The customers perceive what s/he receives as the outcome of the process in which the resources are used, i.e. the technical or outcome quality of the process. But s/he also and often more importantly, perceives how the process itself functions, i.e. the functional or process quality dimension. He also emphasized the importance of corporate image in the experience of service quality. Customers bring their earlier experiences and overall perceptions of a service firm to each encounter because customers often have continuous contacts with the same service firm.

The model below shows the research model used by Grönroos correlating the functional, technical quality with the image of the firm which together affect the service quality perception and ultimately the customer perception.

[pic 2]

Figure 2: Grönroos’ Research Model

Parasuraman et al. (1985) suggested that quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome of service; they also involve evaluations of the service delivery process. While the dimensions are inter-correlated, the primary basis for the dichotomy rests with when the evaluation occurs. For process quality, the evaluation occurs while the service is being performed. For outcome quality, evaluation happens after service performance and focuses on “what” service is delivered. However, their measurement of service quality (i.e. SERVQUAL) does not explicitly reflect both dimensions, but a functional dimension only. The focus on a functional dimension is one criticism of SERVQUAL.

e-SELFQUAL: A scale for measuring online self-service quality

Considerable previous research employs SERVQUAL to assess the quality of an information system or the associated services. However, the service environment may differ significantly between physical store outlets and online storefronts; thus, scales targeting face-to-face services, such as SERVQUAL, may not embrace the essential aspects of online services, which makes them less appropriate or effective for measuring online service quality. In e-retailing, several dimensions fundamental to face-to-face service quality become substantially less relevant, such as tangibility and reliability. Attempts to adapt or extend a face-to-face service scale to measure or evaluate online service quality may lead to decreased reliability, questionable convergent validity, constrained predictive validity, or diminished adequacy and efficacy. The resulting e-SELFQUAL scale examines the relationships between online service quality and customer satisfaction, as well as loyalty in e-retailing.