one page summ
hasalb
rar.pdf
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 14:218–244, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1528-008X print/1528-0098 online DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2013.802557
Assessment of Service Quality in the Hotel Industry
HUNG CHE WU Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Macau University of Science and
Technology, Macau
YONG JAE KO Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, USA
The purpose of this study was to enhance an understanding of service quality in the hotel industry by developing a concep- tual framework and measurement scale. Based on an extensive literature review, qualitative and empirical research, a multi- dimensional and hierarchical model of service quality for the hotel industry is proposed. Analysis of data from a total of 622 customers revealed that the proposed model fit the data well. Reliability and validity of the measurement scale were established through a pilot test and the substantive survey. This study extends the literature on service quality in the fields of hospitality and tourism management by providing a comprehensive framework and measurement scale. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
KEYWORDS multi-dimensional and hierarchical model, hotel industry, scale development, service quality
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1980s, numerous studies have demonstrated that enhanced service quality has positively influenced customer decision-making (Gummesson, 1991; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1990). More specifically, the provision of high-quality services to consumers promotes
Address correspondence to Yong Jae Ko, Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida, PO Box 118208, Gainesville, FL 32611-8208. E-mail: [email protected]
218
Assessment of Service Quality 219
customer loyalty and satisfaction, which, in turn, enhances the profitabil- ity of the service provider (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Dagger, Sweeney, & Johnson, 2007; Fornell, 1992). In the hotel industry, service quality received much attention from both researchers and practitioners because of its pos- itive impact on financial performance, customer satisfaction, and retention (Akbaba, 2006; Ghobadian, Speller, & Jones, 1994; Gržinić, 2007; Martinez Caro & Roemer, 2006; Tam, 2000). Ultimately, quality enhancement is a key determinant for the success of an organization in today’s competitive market environment (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994). Therefore, marketers in the service industry should pay close attention to the issue of service quality (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996).
The tourism industry and hotel business are not exempt from ser- vice quality concerns (Brown, Bowen, & Swartz, 1992; Tsaur & Lin, 2004). In the highly competitive hotel industry, it is very important to differentiate one hotel’s services from those of its competitors. To achieve this, man- agers should understand and satisfy customers’ needs and wants by offering high-quality services (Nadiri & Hussain, 2005). These efforts would improve market share and overall profitability (Anderson et al., 1994; Oh & Parks, 1997). As service quality is becoming an important part of business practice in the tourism and hotel industries, it is imperative to define clearly the qual- ity of hotel services and develop a psychometrically sound measurement tool (Mei, Dean, & White, 1999; Nadiri & Hussain, 2005).
In response to the call for more systematic service quality research, Sargeant and Mohamad (1999) and Tsang and Qu (2000) proposed a num- ber of conceptual models in the context of the hotel and tourism industry. However, the psychometrically sound measures of service quality men- tioned in the literature remain scarce (Min & Min, 1997). Currently, hotel organizations have difficulties in adequately assessing and improving their service performance from a customers’ perspective due to the lack of a psychometrically sound conceptual model and related measurement scale.
Against this background, the purposes of this study are twofold: (a) to propose a conceptual model of service quality in the hotel industry, and (b) to test the psychometric properties of the proposed model by developing a scale for measuring service quality in the hotel service industry. The present study may fill the conceptual void existing in the hotel and tourism industry by offering a comprehensive and industry-specific model of service quality. The accompanying measurement instrument represents a valid and reliable tool for assessing service quality in the hotel industry. The study thus aids future research by providing a foundation for further investigation regarding perceived service quality and a practical assessment tool for evaluating hotel service quality.
The contribution of this study is twofold. First, we conceptualize and measure hotel service quality by using a multi-dimensional and hierarchical approach. This approach helps to overcome some of the
220 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
weaknesses of traditional SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, LODGQUAL, LODGSERV, and HISTOQUAL models as the measurement of hotel service quality and thus provides a more accurate tool for assessing service quality in the hotel industry. In addition, we identify the key manifestation of service quality from the customer’s point of view. Secondly, we offer some practical impli- cations for using this type of model for measuring perceived service quality in applied research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND A CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Measurement of Service Quality
Bitner and Hubbert (1994) defined service quality as “the customer’s overall impression of the relative inferiority and superiority of the organization and its services” (p. 77). This concept has been considered as the sum of activities that make up a consumers’ perception about a service performance (Rossiter, 2002). From a customer’s point of view, service quality is a highly subjective and relativistic phenomenon (Holbrook & Corfman, 1985).
Given the complexity of this phenomenon, it is a challenge to assess service quality with a completely objective measurement or scale. Karatepe, Yavas, and Babakus, (2005) indicated that service quality cannot be objec- tively measured due to its abstraction and elusiveness. Thus, organizations often rely on customers’ perceived service quality to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and prescribe appropriate corrective strategies.
In the early stage of growth in service marketing and management, researchers believed that customers’ service quality perceptions should be measured based on a comparison between expected and perceived perfor- mance, and therefore be the ultimate outcome of a comparative evaluation process (Grönroos, 1984). For example, SERVQUAL has been widely adopted by both scholars and practitioners across many industries in several differ- ent countries. The SERVQUAL instrument was originally designed to assess the difference between quality expectations and perceived service by focus- ing on five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy (Curry & Sinclair, 2002). Later, a large number of hotel studies applied the five-dimension SERVQUAL instrument to assess service quality (Akbaba, 2006; Armstrong et al., 1997; Blešić, Tešanović, & Psodorov, 2011; Gabbie & O’Neill, 1997; Gržinić, 2007; Juwaheer, 2004; Markovic & Raspor, 2010; Mey, Akbar, & Fie, 2006; Ramsaran-Fowdar, 2007; Renganathan, 2011; Saleh & Ryan, 1991).
Based on a literature review, there has been much debate over hotel ser- vice quality when the construct is measured using SERVQUAL. Even though SERVQUAL may help to identify important aspects of perceived service qual- ity, SERVQUAL alone may not adequately assess service performance (Buttle, 1996; Min & Min, 1997). Several marketing researchers (e.g., Buttle, 1996;
Assessment of Service Quality 221
Carman, 1990) have criticized Parasuraman and colleagues’ (1985, 1988) gap analysis in measuring customer’s service quality perceptions and expecta- tions. Consequently, SERVQUAL should not be used to accurately measure hotel service quality (Saleh & Ryan, 1991).
An alternative approach, a performance-based model of service quality (SERVPERF), was developed by Cronin and Taylor (1992). SERVPERF mea- sures service quality based only on customer perceptions of the performance of a service provider (Cronin & Taylor, 1994). Theoretically, SERVPERF is superior to SERVQUAL (Asubonteng, McCleary, & Swan, 1996; Brochado & Marques, 2007; Cronin & Taylor, 1992, 1994; McAlexander, Kaldenberg, & Koenig, 1994). Cronin and Taylor (1994) argued that the SERVPERF measure should explain more of the variance in an overall measure of service quality than the SERVQUAL instrument. However, Nadiri and Hussain (2005) failed to confirm the five dimensions (reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assur- ance and empathy) of the SERVPERF instrument in the hotel industry. Based on the evaluation of the validity and reliability of SERVPERF, Robledo (2001) indicated that SERVPERF was not an effective measurement scale.
Several researchers have extended service quality research to the hotel and tourism industry (Frochot & Hughes, 2000; Getty & Thompson, 1994; Knutson et al., 1991; Mei et al., 1999). For example, Getty and Thompson (1994) developed LODGQUAL based on SERVQUAL dimensions. In addition to the original dimensions of SERVQUAL, the LODGQUAL instrument incor- porated the dimensions of tangibles, contact and reliability, which include attributes associated with response capacity, safety and empathy. Similarly, Mei et al. (1999) developed HOLSERV which includes three dimensions: employees, tangibles and reliability. This instrument is more parsimonious and user-friendly than SERVQUAL. They found that “employees” best rep- resent service quality. Frochot and Hughes (2000) developed HISTOQUAL to evaluate customer perceptions of service quality in historical houses. HISTOQUAL includes 24 items which represent five dimensions: respon- siveness, tangibles, communications, consumables and empathy (Frochot, 2004). However, they found that tangibles and communications have been considered as the most important aspects of historic house service provision.
Several studies identified that the existing measurement scales (e.g., SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, LODGQUAL, LODGSERV, and HISTOQUAL) are insufficient to capture the assessment of service quality in the hotel and tourism industry (Albacete-Sáez, Fuentes-Fuentes, & Lloréns-Montes., 2007; Buttle, 1996; Ekinci, 1999; Frochot & Hughes, 2000; Mei et al., 1999; Nadiri & Hussain, 2005; Wilkins, 2005). Furthermore, these scales only consid- ered only process quality attributes, rather than service outcome (Baker & Lamb, 1993; Richard & Allaway, 1993; Wilkins, 2005). It is therefore important to re-examine the dimensions of service quality within the hotel segment. Recently, several researchers suggested that service quality is multi-dimensional in nature (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Clemes, Gan, & Kao,
222 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
2007, Clemes et al., 2009; Dabholkar, Thorpe, & Rentz, 1996; Ko & Pastore, 2005; Tsitskari, Tsiotras, & Tsiotras, 2006). Accordingly, in light of the gaps associated with the aforementioned scales, the purpose of this study was to present and empirically test a multi-dimensional and hierarchical model that incorporates the specific characteristics of the hotel industry.
Proposed Factor Structure for Hotel Service
Combining the current researchers’ findings from qualitative research (i.e., focus group interviews) and an extensive literature review on hotel service, the multi-dimensional and hierarchical model of hotel service quality was developed, and specific dimensions are summarised in Figure 1. Service quality is the global dimension consisting of three primary dimensions: interaction quality, environmental quality and outcome quality. The three primary dimensions are consistent with prior studies (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Rust & Oliver, 1994), each primary dimension has its own sub-dimensions. Following the work of Brady and Cronin (2001), the sub-dimensions for interaction quality are conduct, expertise and problem-solving; atmosphere, room quality, facility, design and location for environmental quality; and sociability, valence and waiting time for outcome quality. The dimensions and sub-dimensions are explained in detail in the text that follows.
Interaction quality mainly focuses on the way the service is delivered (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Czepiel, Solomon, & Suprenant, 1985; Grönroos, 1984). Several studies have indicated the importance of the interaction qual- ity dimension in the delivery of services and have identified this dimension as the one that has the most significant effect on service quality perceptions (Bigné et al., 1996; Grönroos, 1982; LeBlanc, 1992). Several researchers reported that the human variable is very important because services are inherently intangible and characterized by inseparability (Lovelock, 1981, 1983; Shostack, 1977; Parasuraman et al., 1985). Most services of an organi- zation cannot be counted, measured, examined, confirmed and inventoried in advance of sale to ensure quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Several sub- dimensions in the proposed model help to define interaction quality: (a) conduct (Clemes, Ozanne, & Laurensen, 2001, 2009; Ko & Pastore, 2005; Martinez Caro & Martinez Garcia, 2007), (b) expertise (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Dagger et al., 2007), and (c) problem-solving (Dabholkar et al., 1996; Martinez Caro & Martinez Garcia, 2007, 2008). The first sub-dimension, con- duct, includes the meanings of attitude and behavior. Attitude is referred to as a customer’s feeling of the favorableness or unfavorableness through their behavioral performance (Lam, Cho, & Qu, 2007). Alternatively, Czepiel and coworkers (1985) referred to attitude as an employee’s traits (e.g., friend- liness, warmth, politeness, conduct, concern, openness, helpfulness, etc.). Williams (2005) indicated that certain employee attitudes toward aspects of their job and working environment have been known to be predictive of
Assessment of Service Quality 223
Expertise Interaction
Quality
Environmental
Quality
Outcome
Quality
Waiting Time
Problem
Solving
Atmosphere
Room Quality
Facility
Design
Location
Sociability
Valence
Conduct
Service Quality
FIGURE 1 A Proposed Multi-dimensional and Hierarchical Model of Service Quality.
future behavior. In contrast, behavior is referred to as the manifest func- tion that influences customer perceptions of interaction quality (Czepiel et al., 1985). Chelladurai and Chang (2000) indicated their support for the importance of service employees’ behavior (e.g., service failure and recov- ery). To develop a clear understanding of customer perceptions of service providers’ behavior can assist hotel managers in designing suitable poli- cies and procedures for their customers and employees (Wong & Keung, 2000). However, this sub-dimension has been viewed as “separability” from
224 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
the “personal interaction” dimension because “service recovery is identified as a critical part of good service” (Dabholkar et al., 1996, p. 7). The sec- ond sub-dimension, expertise, has been identified as the degree to which the interaction was affected by the employee’s task-oriented skills (Czepiel et al., 1985). Crosby, Evans, and Cowles (1990) found that expertise had a significant influence on customers’ assessments of service quality. The third sub-dimension, problem-solving, is a dimension identified by Dabholkar and colleagues (1996). Kim and Jin (2002) applied the problem-solving sub- dimension to measure a store’s employee-ability to handle complains and returns, and other customers’ problems.
Second, environmental quality has specifically examined its influences on customer behavior since the early 1970s (Kotler, 1973). Elliott, Hall, and Stiles (1992) referred to environmental quality as the physical features of the service production process. Rys, Fredericks, and Luery (1987) found that customers infer environmental quality based on their perceptions of physi- cal facilities. A large number of researchers have showed that environmental quality is one of the most important aspects in customer evaluations of ser- vice quality (Howat et al. 1996; McDougall & Levesque, 1994; Rust & Oliver, 1994; Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996). Environmental quality is defined by five specific attributes or sub-dimensions: (a) atmosphere (Dagger et al., 2007; Kim & Moon, 2009), (b) room quality (Choi & Chu, 2001; Chu & Choi, 2000), (c) facility (Li, 2003; Wu, Lin & Hsu, 2011), (d) design (Bonn & Joseph- Mathews, 2007; Ko & Pastore, 2005; Tripathi & Siddiqui, 2008), and (e) location (Chou, Hsu, & Chen, 2008; Chu & Choi, 2000; Urtasun & Gutiérrez, 2006). Atmosphere refers to the conscious design of space to create certain effects in customers that increase their purchase likelihood (Kotler, 1973). Since atmosphere is an intrinsically ambiguous concept, their perceptions of the role of atmosphere may be different (Heide, Laerdal, & Gronhaug, 2007). The second sub-dimension, room quality, has been considered as the most influential factor in determining western travelers’ overall satisfaction with hotels (Mey et al., 2006). Therefore, hotel organizations should secure addi- tional resources to improve the quality of their hotel rooms, including room set-up and temperature control, cleanliness, and quietness (Mey et al., 2006). The third sub-dimension, facility, includes the devices used to enhance the accommodation experience. This sub-dimension has been considered to be an important part of constituting the hotel environmental quality dimension (Akbaba, 2006; Clemes et al., 2009; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). The fourth sub-dimension, design, represents the layout or architecture of the service facility, including both aesthetic (visually pleasing) and functional (practi- cal) components of the physical environment (Aubert-Gamet, 1997; Heide et al., 2007; Moye, 2000). Bitner (1992) and Veronique (1997) demonstrated that design has a greater potential to increase positive perceived service quality, as compared to other potential sub-dimensions. In Aubert-Gamet’s (1997) hotel study, design was a visual stimulus that was far more apparent
Assessment of Service Quality 225
to customers than was atmosphere. The last sub-dimension, location, refers to the provision of an overall distribution blueprint for a particular region (Coltman, 1989). Coltman (1989) proposed that transportation and traffic con- ditions are important factors when customers consider the location of their accommodation. In addition, Pan (2002) reported that base station suitability, application of certain regulations, traffic convenience, fine visual perception, public facilities and other services, and flexible space are all important fac- tors when customers select their accommodations. According to Chou and colleagues (2008), the selection of a facility location has important strategic implications because a location decision will normally involve a long-term commitment of resources. A good hotel location cannot only help to increase market share and profitability, but can also enhance the convenience of cus- tomer lodging because establishing a good location will shorten the payoff period for fixed capital investments.
The third primary dimension of service quality, outcome quality, refers to what customers are left with after their service consumption (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006; Grönroos, 1984). Grönroos (1982, 1990) indicated that out- come quality is the result of the service transaction. Powpaka (1996) showed that outcome quality is associated with what customers actually receive from the service transaction or, conversely, what is delivered by the ser- vice provider. Outcome quality is defined by three specific sub-dimensions: (a) sociability (Bonn & Joseph-Mathews, 2007; Brady & Cronin, 2001), (b) valence (Martinez Caro & Martinez Garcia, 2007, 2008), and (c) waiting time (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Dagger et al., 2007). The first sub-dimension, sociability, represents the number and type of people evident in the service setting, as well as their behavior (Aubert-Gamet & Cova, 1999). Milne and McDonald (1999) referred to sociability as positive social experiences that result from the social gratification of being with others who also enjoy the same activity. Ko and Pastore (2005) indicated that the social experience focuses on the overall after-consumption outcome instead of the inter-client interaction that occurs during the service delivery. Clemes and colleagues (2009) identified that sociability has a small impact on service quality in the hotel industry. Therefore, family members, friends and others can be consid- ered important social factors for hotel participants (Baldacchino, 1995). The second sub-dimension, valence, is defined as customers’ post-consumption assessments of whether the service outcome is acceptable or unaccept- able (Ko & Pastore, 2005). Regardless of customer evaluations of any other aspect of the experience, valence mainly focuses on the attributes dominat- ing whether customers can or cannot accept the service outcome (Brady & Cronin, 2001). Alternatively, Ko and Pastore (2005) referred to valence as customers’ post-consumption of intangible evidence that can be totaled and analyzed. Consequently, several researchers found that valence is a key determinant of a service outcome (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Ko & Pastore, 2005; Martinez Caro & Martinez Garcia, 2007). The last sub-dimension, waiting
226 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
time, refers to the amount of time that customers spend waiting in line for service (Hornik, 1982; Katz, Larson, & Larson, 1991). Customers have a certain level of expectation regarding an acceptable waiting time that con- tributes to satisfaction (Taylor, 1994). Therefore, reduced waiting time should be a primary goal for managers (Hwang & Lambert, 2008).
METHODOLOGY
Scale Development
In concert with the criticism of existing scales and conceptualization, several studies have suggested that those scales cannot capture customers’ overall perceptions of hotel service quality as a unique and multi-item construct (Albacete-Sáez et al., 2007; Buttle, 1996; Ekinci, 1999; Frochot & Hughes, 2000; Mei et al., 1999; Nadiri & Hussain, 2005). Using a multi-dimensional model of service quality based on a hierarchical structure may overcome some of the weaknesses of the existing measures (Cronin & Taylor, 1992), and provide a more valid tool for assessing service quality in the hotel industry. Thus, the researchers adopted a multi-dimensional and hierarchi- cal model to evaluate hotel service from a customer’s perspective. Several studies indicated that a multi-dimensional model not only has theoretical support, but is also considered to be valid (Brady & Cronin 2001; Carman, 1990; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Liu, 2005; Martinez Caro & Martinez Garcia, 2007).
In developing a multi-dimensional and hierarchical scale, the first step in developing psychometrically sound measures is specifying the domain of the construct. According to Churchill (1979), the procedure of specifying the domain of the construct should be conducted through a literature search, generation of scale items and scale purification, data collection, assessment of reliability and validity, and norm development. Therefore, the researchers employed the multi-dimensional and hierarchical method because service quality has been viewed as a higher-order construct made up of three pri- mary dimensions, and their own, unique sub-dimensions. The researchers obtained the measurement scales through the procedures as suggested by Churchill (1979).
Qualitative Research
Chumpitaz and Swaen (2002) indicated that the number and nature of ser- vice quality dimensions are in direct relation to the service under analysis. Therefore, to accomplish this, qualitative research was utilized to identify the factors determining customers’ perceptions of hotel service quality.
Krueger (1998) reported that focus groups are frequently used to design a questionnaire for a quantitative survey. The qualitative research was
Assessment of Service Quality 227
conducted to provide additional insights into the proposed dimensions. To obtain in-depth information, the researchers conducted three mini focus groups in this study. Each group was composed of six participants who had stayed in five-star hotels. Following Brady and Cronin (2001), the respon- dents were encouraged to list all factors that influenced their perceptions, according to their experience.
Using content analysis, the researchers processed the responses as fol- lows. First, 11 sub-dimensions were identified by examining the responses, coding the sentences based on their frequency, and classifying similar sen- tences into the same dimension. Second, the researchers identified primary dimensions. Three independent and trained coders were selected to ana- lyze the qualitative data as suggested by several researchers (Brady & Cronin 2001; Martinez Caro & Martinez Garcia, 2007). Then, the sub-dimensions were categorized into the three primary dimensions according to their meanings. Finally, three primary dimensions and 11 sub-dimensions were identified in the hierarchical model. Similar to Dabholkar and colleagues (1996) and Brady and Cronin (2001), the researchers eliminated price from the list of investigated factors, as price was generally seen as a determinant of service value as recommended by Chang and Wildt (1994) and Zeithaml and colleagues (1988) rather than service quality.
Generation of Scale Items and Initial Scale Purification
The items were developed by adopting items from existing scales (e.g., Brady & Cronin, 2001; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Ko & Pastore, 2005; Parasuraman et al., 1988). For example, one item entitled ‘it is aesthetically attractive’ appears in the ‘Design’ dimension of Ko and Pastore’s (2005) scale, was adopted. On the basis of the literature review, the researchers generated an initial pool of 63 items using performance-only measurement scales. These items were indicators of each theoretical sub-dimension. A 7-point Likert- type scale was adopted, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The purification of the scale was conducted in two steps. The first step consisted of an assessment of content and face validity through a panel of experts and a field test (Ko & Pastore, 2005). The panel consisted of six exec- utive members of the Taiwan Resort Hotel Association and five academicians from departments of tourism and hospitality management. They assessed the items on the basis of their relevance and clarity of wording. Items that were endorsed by six experts were retained, whereas items that were deemed to be unclear, irrelevant, or redundant were eliminated. As a result of this panel, 11 items were dropped. In the second step, the researchers developed a questionnaire by using the 52 remaining items. This questionnaire was pilot- tested with 70 respondents who stayed in five-star hotels in Taiwan. The respondents were asked to examine the items for relevance and clarity. The aim of doing such was to study the correlation structure of the items of each
228 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
sub-dimension. According to Parasuraman and colleagues (1988), the purifi- cation of the instrument begins with the computation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, item-to-total correlations and exploratory factor analysis for the 11 sub-dimensions. After that, the researchers examined the dimensionality of the scale in order to prove the factor patterns that emerged were indepen- dent of one another. Based on the results of the pilot-test, eight additional items were dropped or reworded. Following these scale-purification proce- dures, the final version of the instrument had a total of 44 items representing 11 sub-dimensions of hotel service quality (with each sub-dimension having 3–6 items; see Table 1).
Data Collection
According to Vine (1981), a five-star hotel is synonymous with luxury and any “starred” establishment is generally highly regarded by hotel customers. In addition, several studies have shown that hotels categorized as “five-star” provided excellent and extensive facilities, a high quality of service, as well as were able to satisfy customer demands (Akan, 1995; Clavey, 1992; Howe, 1986; Su & Sun, 2007). Su and Sun (2007) demonstrated that the criteria for evaluating four- and five-star hotels are based on the total of the scores of service quality and hotel facilities evaluations in Taiwan. In general, a four- star international tourist hotel typically scores between 601 and 750 points, and a hotel is rated as a five-star international tourist hotel if it scores beyond 750 points.
In order to have convenient access to subjects, the researchers adopted the convenience sampling method. Hotel customers who were willing to fill out the self-administered questionnaire distributed by the hotel front-desk employees were invited to participate in this study.
Sekaran (2003) defined sample size as the actual number of subjects chosen as a sample to represent the population. Alternatively, Kumar (1996) referred to sample size as the number of students, families or electors from whom researchers obtain required information. Though most researchers generally accept that larger samples will be more representative than smaller ones, the advantages of larger samples can be outweighed by their increased costs (Ruane, 2005). Hair and coworkers (1998) noted that a minimum sample size of 200 is required for statistical analysis.
The survey questionnaire was distributed to hotel customers aged 18 years and older. The data were collected at a five-star hotel in Taipei City of Taiwan between 1 August and 1 October, 2009. The questionnaire was conducted in two versions, English and Chinese, to enable foreign and Taiwanese customers to understand the content of the survey. All items used in the questionnaires were reviewed by six academicians in tourism and hospitality and five expert practitioners in the hotel industry to ensure the items were an adequate, and a thorough representation, of the constructs
T A
B L E
1 F ac
to r
Lo ad
in g s,
C o n st
ru ct
R e li ab
il it y
(C R ),
St an
d ar
d E rr
o rs
(S E ),
an d
M e an
s o f It e m
s
F ac
to r
(α )
It e m
s λ
C .R
. S.
E .
M e an
C o n d u ct
(α =
0 .9
1 )
T h e
b e h av
io r
o f th
e e m
p lo
y e e
al lo
w s
m e
to tr u st
th e ir
se rv
ic e s.
0 .8
0 0 .9
1 0 .0
5 0
5 .1
T h e
at ti tu
d e
o f _ _ _
d e m
o n st
ra te
s th
e ir
w il li n g n e ss
to h e lp
m e .
0 .8
5 0 .0
4 5
5 .3
_ _ _
al w
ay s
p ro
v id
e th
e b e st
se rv
ic e
fo r
m e .
0 .8
7 0 .0
4 5
5 .2
I ca
n d e p e n d
o n
_ _ _
b e in
g fr
ie n d ly
. 0 .8
0 0 .0
4 3
5 .3
T h e
at ti tu
d e
o f _ _ _
sh o w
s m
e th
at th
e y
u n d e rs
ta n d
m y
n e e d s.
0 .7
9 −
5 .1
E x p e rt is
e (α
= 0 .9
1 )
_ _ _
u n d e rs
ta n d
th at
th e ir
p ro
fe ss
io n al
k n o w
le d g e
ca n
m e e t m
y n e e d s.
0 .7
1 0 .9
2 0 .0
3 0
5 .6
I ca
n co
u n t o n
_ _ _
k n o w
in g
th e ir
jo b s/
re sp
o n si
b il it ie
s. 0 .9
8 0 .0
2 2
5 .4
_ _ _
ar e
co m
p e te
n t.
0 .9
5 −
5 .4
P ro
b le
m - So
lv in
g (α
= 0 .8
7 )
W h e n
I h av
e a
p ro
b le
m , _ _ _
sh o w
a si
n ce
re in
te re
st in
so lv
in g
it .
0 .8
1 0 .8
8 0 .0
4 5
5 .9
_ _ _
u n d e rs
ta n d
th e
im p o rt an
ce o f re
so lv
in g
m y
co m
p la
in ts
. 0 .8
6 0 .0
4 9
5 .8
_ _ _
ar e
ab le
to h an
d le
m y
co m
p la
in ts
d ir e ct
ly an
d im
m e d ia
te ly
. 0 .8
4 −
5 .8
A tm
o sp
h e re
T h e
at m
o sp
h e re
is w
h at
I e x p e ct
. 0 .6
5 0 .9
1 0 .0
4 5
5 .4
(α =
0 .9
0 )
T h e
st y le
o f d é co
r is
to m
y li k in
g .
0 .8
6 0 .0
3 8
5 .4
I re
al ly
e n jo
y th
e at
m o sp
h e re
. 0 .7
7 0 .0
4 4
5 .3
T h e
d é co
r e x h ib
it s
a g re
at d e al
o f th
o u g h t an
d st
y le
. 0 .7
0 0 .0
4 5
5 .3
T h e
d é co
r is
st y li sh
an d
at tr ac
ti v e .
0 .8
2 0 .0
4 1
5 .3
T h e
am b ie
n ce
is e x ce
ll e n t.
0 .8
4 −
5 .4
R o o m
Q u al
it y
T h e
ro o m
si ze
is ad
e q u at
e .
0 .8
1 0 .9
2 0 .0
4 4
5 .0
(α =
0 .9
2 )
T h e
b at
h ro
o m
an d
to il e t ar
e cl
e an
. 0 .7
8 0 .0
4 3
5 .1
T h e
b e d / m
at tr e ss
/ p il lo
w is
co m
fo rt ab
le .
0 .8
4 0 .0
4 3
5 .1
T h e
ro o m
is cl
e an
. 0 .7
9 0 .0
4 4
5 .1
(C o n
ti n
u ed
)
229
T A
B L E
1 (C
o n ti n u e d )
F ac
to r
(α )
It e m
s λ
C .R
. S.
E .
M e an
T h e
ro o m
is q u ie
t. 0 .8
4 0 .0
4 2
5 .0
In -r
o o m
te m
p e ra
tu re
co n tr o l is
o f h ig
h q u al
it y .
0 .8
1 −
5 .0
F ac
il it y
(α =
0 .8
5 )
T h e re
ar e
ac ce
ss ib
le fi re
e x it s.
0 .8
6 0 .8
6 0 .0
5 8
5 .5
T h e re
ar e
n o ti ce
ab le
sp ri n k le
r sy
st e m
s. 0 .8
9 0 .0
5 5
5 .5
T h e re
ar e
a v ar
ie ty
o f fo
o d
& b e v e ra
g e
fa ci
li ti e s.
0 .6
2 0 .0
6 2
5 .1
A se
cu re
sa fe
is av
ai la
b le
in th
e ro
o m
. 0 .7
1 −
5 .3
D e si
g n
It is
ae st
h e ti ca
ll y
at tr ac
ti v e .
0 .6
9 0 .8
3 −
5 .3
(α =
0 .8
3 )
T h e
la y o u t m
ak e s
it e as
y fo
r m
e to
m o v e
ar o u n d .
0 .8
0 0 .0
6 6
5 .3
T h e
la y o u t se
rv e s
m y
p u rp
o se
s/ n e e d s.
0 .8
7 0 .0
6 8
5 .2
Lo ca
ti o n
T h e
re ta
il st
o re
s ar
e co
n v e n ie
n tl y
lo ca
te d .
0 .8
0 0 .7
8 −
5 .2
(α =
0 .7
7 )
T h e
d in
in g -o
u t fa
ci li ti e s
ar e
co n v e n ie
n tl y
lo ca
te d .
0 .8
0 0 .0
5 5
5 .1
T h e re
ar e
co n v e n ie
n t p ar
k in
g sp
ac e s
av ai
la b le
. 0 .6
0 0 .0
6 4
5 .2
So ci
ab il it y
I am
p ro
v id
e d
w it h
o p p o rt u n it ie
s fo
r so
ci al
in te
ra ct
io n .
0 .8
3 0 .8
4 −
5 .2
(α =
0 .8
3 )
I fe
e l a
se n se
o f b e lo
n g in
g w
it h
o th
e r
cu st
o m
e rs
. 0 .7
3 0 .0
5 4
5 .3
I h av
e m
ad e
so ci
al co
n ta
ct s.
0 .8
3 0 .0
6 0
5 .2
V al
e n ce
(α =
0 .9
0 )
A t th
e e n d
o f m
y st
ay , I
fe e l th
at I
h av
e h ad
a g o o d
e x p e ri e n ce
. 0 .7
1 0 .9
1 −
5 .2
W h e n
I le
av e , I
fe e l th
at I’ v e
g o t w
h at
I w
an te
d .
0 .9
6 0 .0
5 8
5 .1
I w
o u ld
e v al
u at
e th
e o u tc
o m
e o f th
e se
rv ic
e s
fa v o ra
b ly
. 0 .9
6 0 .0
5 7
5 .0
W ai
ti n g
T im
e T h e
w ai
ti n g
ti m
e fo
r se
rv ic
e is
re as
o n ab
le .
0 .6
9 0 .8
6 −
5 .4
(α =
0 .8
5 )
T h e
e m
p lo
y e e s
tr y
to m
in im
iz e
m y
w ai
ti n g
ti m
e .
0 .7
1 0 .0
6 4
5 .5
T h e
e m
p lo
y e e s
u n d e rs
ta n d
th at
w ai
ti n g
ti m
e is
im p o rt an
t to
m e .
0 .8
1 0 .0
6 1
5 .4
T h e
e m
p lo
y e e s
p ro
v id
e se
rv ic
e fo
r m
e p u n ct
u al
ly .
0 .7
0 0 .0
5 7
5 .5
T h e
e m
p lo
y e e s
ar e
ab le
to an
sw e r m
y q u e st
io n s
q u ic
k ly
. 0 .7
7 0 .0
5 4
5 .4
N o te
. D
as h e s
in d ic
at e
th at
th e
it e m
s ar
e fi x e d
at 1 .0
; S.
E .=
St an
d ar
d E rr
o r.
∗ p <
0 .0
5 .
230
Assessment of Service Quality 231
under investigation. Both versions of the questionnaire were pre-tested. Fifty English-speaking and fifty Taiwanese people who had previously stayed in five-star hotels in Taiwan completed the pre-test questionnaires. The respon- dents were encouraged to comment on any questions or statements that they thought were ambiguous or unclear. In order to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, each customer who was willing to fill out the questionnaire dis- tributed by the front-desk employees was required to return their completed questionnaire to a drop box at the front-desk reception area of the hotel.
Of the 710 questionnaires distributed by front-desk employees, 662 were returned within two months. Forty of the questionnaires were incomplete or unsuitable for use in this study. This resulted in a total of 622 usable responses, or a 93.96% usable response rate.
RESULTS
Exploratory Assessment of the Measures
An exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to reduce data dimen- sionality and create appropriate factors or dimensions for subsequent analysis. A principal component factor analysis using the alpha method, with varimax rotation, was performed on the individual items for measuring 11 sub-dimensions. Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha were used as the criteria for item reduction. Items that had higher than 0.60 reliability coef- ficients, as suggested by Churchill (1979), were retained in the item pool. In order to include items with practically significant factor loadings, items with a factor loading less than 0.30 and items with high loadings on more than one factor were removed from the item pool, as suggested by Hair and colleagues (2006). The researchers used eigenvalue (greater than one) as a standard, which accounts for a greater amount of variance than had been contributed by one variable. Such a component is therefore accounting for a meaningful amount of variance, and is worthy of being retained, as recommended by Hair and coworkers (2006).
Model Testing
The efficacy of the proposed model and conceptual properties of the scale were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 15.0 and the Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) 7.0. The conceptualiza- tion depicted in Figure 1 can be described as a third-order factor model, which comprises not only the direct primary dimensions but also the 11 sub- dimensions, defining service quality through customers’ perceptions of the three primary factors. The researchers examined the efficacy of the proposed model by testing a measurement model and the overall model.
232 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
TABLE 2 Results of the Measurement and Structural Model Tests
Model x2 df x2/df p RMSEA SRMR TLI CFI
Measurement model 2418.6 847 2.855 0.000 0.055 0.049 0.902 0.912 Structural model-Overall model 2626.3 888 2.958 0.000 0.056 0.068 0.897 0.903
Note. RMSEA = Root Mean Square of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Residual; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index. p < 0.00.
In the first step, the researchers tested the measurement model using the assessment of the third-order factor model. To establish construct validity, the researchers examined: (a) the relationship between the observable indicators (items) and their latent constructs (11 sub-dimensions), (b) the critical ratio (C.R.) in each item, and (c) correlations among sub-dimensions. According to Janssens and colleagues (2008), using a significance level of 0.05 and the critical ratio greater than 1.96 in magnitude for a two-tail test would be considered statistically significant.
The second step was to test the overall model (see Table 2). The overall fit of the measurement model was found to be adequate. The chi-square/df ratios (2.86) were lower than the suggested threshold (i.e., less than 3.0; Carmines & Mclver, 1981; Kline, 1998). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value (0.06) and standardized root mean residual (SRMR) value (0.05) were lower than 0.08, indicating adequate fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hair et al., 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, all other indices (i.e., TLI and CFI estimates) were greater than the recommended 0.90 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Kline, 1998).
Reliability and Validity of the Scales
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and descriptive statis- tics are depicted in Table 1. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha estimates for the 11 sub-dimensions of service quality ranged between 0.77 and 0.92, exceed- ing the minimum value of 0.70, as recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994).
An examination of the indicators’ factor loadings on their respective constructs provides evidence of convergent validity of the scale. More specif- ically, except for five items (see Table 1), the standardized regression weights for all items were greater than the conservative threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006; Litwin, 1995). The significant relationship between the three primary dimensions (i.e., interaction quality, environmental quality and out- come quality) and the overall outcome variable (i.e., service quality) further supported the convergent validity of the scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; see Table 3). The critical ratios for all indicators ranged from 13.7 to 48.4 and each of them was significant at the 0.05 level (see Table 1). Discriminant
Assessment of Service Quality 233
TABLE 3 Parameter Estimates for Structural Model 2
Relationships Estimates SE CR
Interaction Quality - Service Quality 1.00 0.17 4.4 Environmental Quality - Service Quality 0.82 0.21 7.5 Outcome Quality - Service Quality 0.79 − − Conduct - Interaction Quality 0.86 0.67 5.1 Expertise - Interaction Quality 0.49 0.47 4.8 Problem-Solving - Interaction Quality 0.25 − − Atmosphere - Environmental Quality 0.66 0.10 10.4 Room Quality - Environmental Quality 0.34 0.07 7.0 Design - Environmental Quality 0.68 0.10 9.7 Location - Environmental Quality 0.55 0.10 8.9 Facility - Environmental Quality 0.67 − − Sociability - Outcome Quality 0.41 0.13 6.2 Valence - Outcome Quality 0.56 0.16 7.4 Waiting Time - Outcome Quality 0.54 − − Note. Dashes indicate that the factors are fixed at 1.0; Parameter estimates were found in standardized regression weight; CR = critical ratios were found in unstandardized regression weight, SE = Standard Error. ∗p < 0.05.
TABLE 4 Correlations Matrix for the Sub-dimensions
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Conduct .68a
Expertise .40∗ .79a
Problem-Solving .28∗ .03 .70a
Atmosphere .47∗ .36∗ .12∗ .63a
Room Quality .38∗ .26∗ −.02 .22∗ .66a Facility .52∗ .23∗ .15∗ .42∗ .17∗ .61a
Design .50∗ .21∗ .22∗ .52∗ .17∗ .48∗ .62a
Location .42∗ .26∗ .32∗ .37∗ .14∗ .41∗ .33∗ .55a
Sociability .21∗ .22∗ −.08 .14∗ .16∗ .13∗ .18∗ .26∗ .64a Valence .41∗ .24∗ .07 .20∗ .31∗ .25∗ .28∗ .21∗ .38∗ .78a
Waiting Time .46∗ .26∗ .13∗ .10∗ .30∗ .26∗ .18∗ .22∗ .23∗ .21∗ .61a
aAverage Variance Extracted. ∗p < .05.
validity is established when the estimated correlations between the factors or dimensions are not excessively high (i.e., > 0.85; Kline, 1998). The cor- relation estimates for the 11 sub-dimensions were lower (−0.02 – 0.52) than the suggested threshold (r = .85; except for six cases (see Table 4). However, the correlated sub-dimensions of the six cases were representing the same factors, and the sub-dimensions are conceptually different (e.g., facility and room quality). Therefore, the data recommended that strong evidence of construct validity and reliability exists for the Scale of Service Quality in Hotels (SSQH).
234 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
Results of Structural Equation Analyses
The results of the structural model test are presented in Table 2, indicating an adequate fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.07, TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90). The chi-square (x2/df ) ratio of 2.96 was lower than the suggested criterion (x2/df < 3).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study proposed and tested a service quality framework for hotel ser- vice, and developed the SSQH based on a comprehensive description of possible facets of service quality. The results indicated that the framework and measurement scale is psychometrically sound. All in all, despite the aforementioned limitations, the proposed conceptual model and developed scale can fill the gap existing in the hotel literature.
Major Findings
The findings of this study contribute to the hotel management and mar- keting literature in two important ways. First, the proposed research model provides a systematic understanding of the concept of service quality in the hotel industry. Second, this study conceptualizes and measures customer perceptions of hotel service quality using a multi-dimensional and hierar- chical approach. This approach helps to overcome some of the weaknesses of traditional measurement methods (SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, LODGQUAL, HOLSERV, LODGSERV and HISTOQUAL), and thus provides a more concep- tually sound method for assessing service quality in the hotel sector. The SSQH developed in this study can provide marketers and researchers with a diagnostic tool to assess service quality from the perspectives of customers and identify areas that need improvement during service delivery.
First, in terms of the theoretical implications, the findings of this study indicate that the proposed research model adequately describes the con- cept of service quality in the hotel industry. Specifically, the overall fit of the model was good and the hypothesized relationships were confirmed. All factor loadings depicted in the research model were statistically signif- icant. Some of the 11 sub-dimensions identified in this research are also similar in content to those factored by other researchers who have focused on hotel studies (Ekinci & Riley, 2001; Heide et al., 2007; Lennon & Wood, 1989; Sánchez-Hernándeza et al., 2009; West & Purvis, 1992). Conversely, the 11 sub-dimensions differ in number from other hotel studies (Callan, 1996; Choi & Chu, 2001; Chu & Choi, 2000; Gu & Ryan, 2008; Saleh & Ryan, 1992).
The sub-dimensional factor structure supports the view that the dimensionality of the service quality construct depends on the service
Assessment of Service Quality 235
industry under investigation and adds support to the claims that industry and culture-specific measures of service quality need to be developed (Brady & Cronin, 2001; Clemes et al., 2001, 2007; Dabholkar et al., 1996; Kang, 2006; Powpaka, 1996). The significant correlations among dimensions, theoretical interpretability, and good fit of the model supported the third-order fac- tor structure of the proposed model. The SSQH was developed to test the proposed model. The findings of the CFA indicate strong evidence of the reliability and convergent validity of the scale.
The results of this study increase support for the use of a multi- dimensional and hierarchical structure, such as those developed by Brady and Cronin (2001) and Dabholkar and colleagues (1996), and conceptualize and measure service quality in the hotel services context. However, the three primary dimensions identified in this research may not be generalizable for all service industries outside the accommodation sector, or for different cul- tures. The primary dimensions identified in this study should be confirmed for other service industries through the use of appropriate qualitative and quantitative analyses. In addition, the sub-dimensions need to be confirmed using appropriate qualitative and quantitative analyses because they may vary across industries and cultures. It is also valuable to compare the derived importance of the three primary dimensions and 11 sub-dimensions of the hotel service quality construct identified in this research with the derived importance of these dimensions identified in additional studies. Overall, the findings of this study have expanded the research of service quality by providing a conceptual framework and measurement scale for the hotel industry.
Secondly, this study also provides several important implications for hotel marketers. Managers can use this framework and scale as a diagnos- tic tool to identify strengths and weaknesses in their services, offering the guidance for potential areas of improvement. However, because the dimen- sions of service quality vary across industries and cultures, hotel managers should note that the primary and sub dimensional structures must be deter- mined for their own specific organization and cultural setting to accurately measure customer perceptions of their hotel experiences. The service quality measurement scale developed in this study can also be used to monitor and improve the quality of service delivered to customers. In sum, the findings of this study provide managers with valuable insights into the dimensions that reflect customers’ perceptions of hotel service quality.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although this study provides a number of important contributions to hotel service management, organizations and individuals wishing to use the results in relation to specific strategic decisions should note several characteristics of the study that may limit overall generalizability. First, despite the amount of
236 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
literature on service quality, it has been difficult to offer a full description of the nature of the hotel service quality construct. Despite this difficulty, this study conducted in-depth focus group interviews to identify and examine all of the dimensions of the service quality construct for hotels, because focus group interviews are believed to be more useful than relying only on a literature review. However, there may be some other dimensions of service quality that have not been identified in the conceptual framework of this study. Additionally, the sociability sub-dimension included in our proposed model may not be an important consideration for some customers in the hotel industry. Future studies need to further explore the importance of this element in evaluating customers’ perception of overall service quality. Second, the data were collected from customers who had stayed at a five-star hotel in Taipei City of Taiwan. This may limit the ability to generalize the results to five-star hotels in other regions or countries.
This study represents an important step in understanding the issues involved in the operationalization of hotel service quality. However, several additional research areas of interest have surfaced. First, it is necessary to further improve the scale by refining the five items with relatively low fac- tor loadings. Second, this research was only limited to a five-star hotel in Taiwan. Future studies should attempt to examine service quality across dif- ferent hotel ratings and in other regions. This may provide an opportunity to compare the quality of service based on different hotel ratings (e.g., three- or four-star hotels) in other regions. In addition, it is necessary to establish reliability and validity of the scale to further analyze the items in different ratings of hotels. Third, future studies can analyze changes in the impor- tance of the dimensions. For example, a longitudinal study focusing on hotel customers from check-in to check-out may provide information about their levels of satisfaction with service and the importance of the relevant con- structs over time. Fourth, future researchers should seriously consider the issue of cultural differences when applying the results of this study to other countries.
REFERENCES
Akan, P. (1995). Dimensions of service quality: A study in Istanbul. Managing Service Quality, 5(6), 39–43.
Akbaba, A. (2006). Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: A study in a busi- ness hotel in Turkey. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), 170–192.
Albacete-Sáez, C. A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., & Lloréns-Montes, F. J. (2007). Service quality measurement in rural accommodation. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 45–65.
Assessment of Service Quality 237
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 53–66.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125–143.
Armstrong, R. W., Mok, C., Go, F. M., & Chan, A. (1997). The importance of cross-cultural expectations in the measurement of service quality perceptions in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16 (2), 181–190.
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. J., & Swan, J. E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: A critical review of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 62–81.
Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997). Twisting servicescapes: Diversion of the physical environ- ment in a re-appropriation process. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(1), 26–41.
Aubert-Gamet, V., & Cova, B. (1999). Servicescapes: From modern non-places to postmodern common places. Journal of Business Research, 44(1), 37–45.
Australian Automobile Association (AAA). (2003–2004). The Australian automobile association tourism guide. Adelaide, Australia: AAA.
Baker, J. A., & Lamb, C. W. (1993). Measuring architectural design service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 10(1), 89–106.
Baldacchino, G. (1995). Total quality management in a luxury hotel: A critique of practice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(1), 67–78.
Bigné, J. E., Martínez, C., Miquel, M. J., & Belloch, A. (1996). Una Adaptación de la Escala SERVQUAL. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la empresa, 5(2), 7–18.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), 57–71.
Bitner, M. J., & Hubbert, A. R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfac- tion versus quality: the customer’s voice. In Rust, R. T. & Oliver, R. L. (Eds), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 72–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blešić, I., Tešanović, D., & Psodorov, D. (2011). Consumer satisfaction and quality management in the hospitality industry in South-East Europe. African Journal of Business Management, 5(4), 1388–1396.
Bonn, M. A., & Joseph-Mathews, S. M. (2007). Heritage/cultural attraction atmospher- ics: Creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), 345–354.
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34–49.
Brochado, A., & Marques, R. C. (2007). Comparing alternative instruments to mea- sure service quality in higher education (Working Paper Report No. 258). Lisbon, Portugal: Technical University of Lisbon.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
238 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
Brown, S., Bowen, D., & Swartz, T. A. (1992). The future of quality in services. Paper presented at the QUIS3 conference, Karlstad, Sweden.
Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), 8–35.
Callan, R. J. (1996). An appraisement of UK business travelers’ perceptions of important hotel attributes. Hospitality Research Journal, 19(4), 113–127.
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66 (1), 33–55.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing Models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.). Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chang, T. Z., & Wildt, A. R. (1994). Price, product information, and purchase inten- tion: An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 16–27.
Chelladurai, P., & Chang, K. (2000). Targets and standards of quality in sport services. Sport Management Review, 3(1), 1–22.
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(3), 277–297.
Chou, T. Y., Hsu, C. L., & Chen, M. C. (2008). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for international tourist hotels location selection. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (2), 293–301.
Chu, R. K. S., & Choi, T. (2000). An importance-performance analysis of hotel selec- tion factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: A comparison of business and leisure travelers. Tourism Management,21(4), 363–377.
Chumpitaz, R., & Swaen, V. (2002). Service quality and brand loyalty relationships: Investigating the mediating effect of customer satisfaction. Paper presented at the 31st European Marketing Academy Conference, Braga, Portugal.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64–73.
Clavey, J. (1992). Anger as lodges are crowned. Caterer and Hotel Keeper, 7 (December), 8.
Clemes, M. D., Gan, C. E. C., & Kao, T. H. (2007). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17 (2), 292–325.
Clemes, M. D., Ozanne, L. K., & Laurensen, W. L. (2001). Patients’ perceptions of service quality dimensions: An empirical examination of health care in New Zealand. Health Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 3–22.
Clemes, M. D., Wu, H. C. J., Hu, B. D., & Gan, C. (2009). An empirical study of behavioral intentions in the Taiwan hotel industry. Innovative Marketing, 5(3), 30–50.
Coltman, M. M. (1989). Tourism Marketing. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services
selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68–81.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (3), 55–68.
Assessment of Service Quality 239
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of ser- vice quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125–131.
Curry, A., & Sinclair, E. (2002). Assessing the quality of physiotherapy services using SERVQUAL. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 15(5), 197–205.
Czepiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., & & Suprenant, C. E. (1985). The service encounter. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 3–16.
Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Johnson, L. W. (2007). A hierarchical model of health service quality: Scale development and investigation of an integrated model. Journal of Service Research, 10(2), 123–142.
Ekinci, Y. (1999). An examination of generic service quality dimensions for the evaluation of hotels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, United Kingdom.
Ekinci, Y., & Riley, M. (2001). Validating quality dimensions. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 202–223.
Elliott, K. M., Hall, M. C., & Stiles, G. W. (1992). Service quality in the health care industry: How are hospitals evaluated by the general public? Journal of Hospital Marketing, 7 (1), 113–124.
Fassnacht, M., & Koese, I. (2006). Quality of electronic services: Conceptualising and testing a hierarchical model. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 19–37.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56 (1), 6–21.
Frochot, I., & Hughes, H. (2000). HISTOQUAL: The development of a historic houses assessment scale. Tourism Management, 21(2), 157–167.
Frochot, I. (2004). An investigation into the influence of the benefits sought by visitors on their quality evaluation of historic houses service provision. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(3), 223–237.
Gabbie, O., & O’Neill, M. A. (1997). SERVQUAL and the Northern Ireland hotel sector: A comparative analysis - part 2. Managing Service Quality, 7 (1), 43–49.
Getty, J. M., & Thompson, K. N. (1994). A procedure for scaling perceptions of lodging quality. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(2), 75–96.
Ghobadian, A., Speller, S., & Jones, M. (1994). Service quality: Concepts and models. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11(9), 43–66.
Grönroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of Marketing, 16 (7), 30–41.
Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.
Grönroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in service competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Gržinić, J. (2007). Concepts of service quality measurement in hotel industry. Economic Thought and Practice, 1, 81–98.
Gu, H., & Ryan, C. (2008). Chinese clientele at Chinese hotels: Preferences and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (3), 337–345.
240 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
Gummesson, E. (1991). Service quality: A holistic view. In S. W. Brown, E. Gummesson, B. Edvardsson, & B. Gustavsson (Eds.), Service quality: Multi-disciplinary and multi-national perspectives (pp. 3–22). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heide, M., Laerdal, K., & Gronhaug, K. (2007). The design and management of ambi- ence: Implications for hotel architecture and service. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1315–1325.
Hilliard, T. W., & Baloglu, S. (2008). Safety and security as part of the hotel servicescape for meeting planner. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 9(1), 15–34.
Holbrook, M. B., & Corfman, K. P. (1985). Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaldrus rides again. In J. Jacoby & J. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality (pp. 31–57). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hornik, J. (1982). Situational effects on the consumption of time. Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (4), 44–55.
Howat, G., Absher, J., Crilley, G., & Miline, I. (1996). Measuring customer service quality in sports and leisure centers. Managing Leisure, 1(2), 77–89.
Howe, F. (1986). The crown is here to stay. British Hotelier and Restaurateur, June, 14.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, R. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc- ture analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Midtidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.
Hwang, J., & Lambert, C. U. (2008). The interaction of major resources and their influence on waiting times in a multi-stage restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (4), 541–551.
Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., Pelsmacker, P. D., & Kenhove, P. V. (2008). Marketing research with SPSS. New York, NY: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
Juwaheer, T. D. (2004). Exploring international tourists’ perceptions of hotel oper- ations by using a modified SERVQUAL approach: A case study of Mauritius. Managing Service Quality, 14(5), 350–364.
Kang, G. D. (2006). The hierarchical structure of service quality: Integration of technical and functional quality. Managing Service Quality, 16 (1), 37–50.
Karatepe, O., Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (2005). Measuring service quality of banks: Scale development and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(5), 373–383.
Katz, K., Larson, B., & Larson, R. (1991). Prescription for the waiting in line blues: Entertain, enlighten and engage. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 44–53.
Kim, S., & Jin, B. (2002). Validating the retail service quality scale for US and Korean customers of discount stores: An exploratory study. Journal of Services Marketing, 16 (2/3), 223–237.
Kim, W. G., & Moon, Y. J. (2009). Customers’ cognitive, emotional, and actionable response to the servicescape: A test of the moderating effect of the restaurant type. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 144–156.
Assessment of Service Quality 241
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Knutson, B. J., Stevens, P., Wullaert, C., Patton, M., & Yokoyama, F. (1991). LODGSERV: A service quality index for the lodging industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2), 277–284.
Ko, Y. J., & Pastore, D. L. (2005). A hierarchical model of service quality for the recreational sport industry. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(2), 84–97.
Ko, Y. J., Zhang, J., Cattani, K., & Pastore, D. (2011). Assessment of event quality in major spectator sports. Managing Service Quality, 21(3), 304–322.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48–64.
Krueger, R. A. (1998). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kumar, R. (1996), Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Mellbourne, Australia: Longman.
Lam, T., Cho, V., & Qu, H. (2007). A study of hotel employee behavioral inten- tions towards adoption of information technology. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26 (1), 49–65.
LeBlanc, G. (1992). Factor affecting customer evaluation of service quality in travel agencies: An investigation of customer perception. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 10–17.
Lennon, J. J., & Wood, R. C. (1989). The sociological analysis of hospitality labor and the neglect of accommodation workers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 8(3), 227–235.
Li, S. S. (2003). Quality of food & beverage service of some star-rated hotels: Problems and countermeasures. Journal of Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, 17 (3), 204–208.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lovelock, C. H. (1981). Why marketing management needs to be different for ser- vices. In J. Donnelly & W. George (Eds.), Marketing of services (pp. 5–9). Chicago, IL: American Marketing.
Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), 9–20.
Liu, C. M. (2005). Multi-dimensional and hierarchical structure of perceived qual- ity and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Management, 22(3), 426–435.
Markovic, S., & Raspor, S. (2010). Measuring perceived service quality using SERVQUAL: A case study of the Croatian hotel industry. Management, 5(3), 195–209.
Martinez Caro, L., & Martinez Garcia, J. A. (2007). Measuring perceived service quality in urgent transport service. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(1), 60–72.
Martinez Caro, L., & Martinez Garcia, J. A. (2008). Developing a multi-dimensional and hierarchical service quality model for the travel agency industry. Tourism Management, 29(4), 706–720.
242 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
Martinez Caro, L., & Roemer, E. (2006). Developing a multi-dimensional and hierar- chical service quality model for the travel and tourism industry (Working Paper Rep. No. 06/18). Bradford, UK: Bradford University.
McAlexander, J. H., Kaldenberg, D. O., & Koenig, H. F. (1994). Service quality measurement. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 14(3), 34–40.
McDougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. J. (1994). A revised view of service quality dimension: An empirical investigation. Journal of Professional Service Marketing, 11(1), 189–209.
Mei, A. W. O., Dean, A. M., & White, C. J. (1999). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 9(2), 136–143.
Mey, L. P., Akbar, A. K., & Fie, D. Y. G. (2006). Measuring service quality and customer satisfaction of the hotels in Malaysia: Malaysian, Asian and non-Asian hotel guests. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13(2), 144–160.
Milne. G.R., & McDonald, M. A. (1999). Sport Marketing: Managing the exchange process. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Min, H., & Min, H. (1997). Benchmarking the quality of hotel services: Managerial perspectives. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(6), 582–597.
Moye, L. N. (2000). Influence of shopping orientations, selected environmental dimensions with apparel shopping scenarios, and attitude on store patronage for female consumers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Nadiri, H., & Hussain, K. (2005). Perceptions of service quality in North Cyprus hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17 (6), 469–480.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, H., & Parks, S. C. (1997). Customer satisfaction and service quality: A critical review of the literature and research implications for the hospitality industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 20(3), 35–64.
Pan, C. M. (2002). Market concentration ratio analysis of the international tourist hotel industry in Taipei area. Tourism Management Research, 2(2), 57–66.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple- item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). An empirical examination of relationships in an extended service quality model. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Powpaka, S. (1996). The role of outcome quality as a determinant of overall service quality in different categories of services industries: An empirical investigation. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(2), 5–25.
Ramsaran-Fowdar, R. R. (2007). Developing a service quality questionnaire for the hotel industry in Mauritius. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(1), 19–27.
Assessment of Service Quality 243
Renganathan, R. (2011). Service quality in hospitality services: Gap model and factor analysis. European Journal of Social Sciences, 26 (2), 159–175.
Richard, M. D., & Allaway, A. W. (1993). Service quality attributes and choice behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 7 (1), 59–68.
Robledo, M. A. (2001). Measuring and managing service quality: Integrating customer expectations. Managing Service Quality, 11(1), 22–31.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335.
Ruane, J. M. (2005). Essentials of research methods: A guide to social science research. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: Insights and managerial implica- tions from the frontier. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rys, M. E., Fredericks, J. O., & Luery, D. (1987). Value=quality? Are service value and service quality synonymous: A decompositional approach? In C. F. Surprenant (Ed.), Add value to your service (pp. 25–28). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry using SERVQUAL. The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324–346.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1992). Client perceptions of hotels: A multi-attribute approach. Tourism Management, 13(2), 163–168.
Sánchez-Hernándeza, R. M., Martínez-Tura, V., Peiro, J. M., & Ramosa, J. (2009). Testing a hierarchical and integrated model of quality in the service sector: Functional, relational, and tangible dimensions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(11), 1173–1188.
Sargeant, A., & Mohamad, M. (1999). Business performance in the UK hotel sector: Does it pay to be market-oriented? The Services Industry Journal, 19(3), 42–59.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 73–80.
Su, C. S., & Sun, L. H. (2007). Taiwan’s hotel rating system: A service quality perspective. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 392–401.
Tam, J. L. M. (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer sat- isfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 6 (4), 31–43.
Taylor, S. (1994). Waiting for service: the relationship between delays and the evaluations of service. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 56–69.
Tripathi, S. N., & Siddiqui, M. H. (2008). Servicescape of a shopping mall: A hierarchical framework. AIMS International Journal of Management, 2(3), 215–235.
Tsang, N., & Qu, H. (2000). Service quality in China’s hotel industry: A percep- tive from tourists and hotel managers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(5), 316–326.
Tsaur, S. H., & Lin, Y. C. (2004). Promoting service quality in tourist hotels: The role of HRM practices and service behavior. Tourism Management, 25(4), 471–481.
244 H. C. Wu and Y. J. Ko
Tsitskari, E., Tsiotras, D., & Tsiotras, G. (2006). Measuring service quality in sport services. Total Quality Management, 17 (5), 623–631.
Urtasun, A., & Gutiérrez, I. (2006). Hotel location in tourism cities: Madrid 1936–1998. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 382–402.
Veronique, A. (1997). Twisting servicescapes: Diversion of the physical environ- ment in a re-appropriation process. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(1), 26–41.
Vine, P. A. L. (1981). Hotel classification: Art or science? International Journal of Tourism Management, 2(1), 18–29.
Wakefield, K. L., Blodgett, J. G., & Sloan, H. J. (1996). Measurement and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), 15–31.
Wilkins, H. C. (2005). A structural model of satisfaction and brand attitude in hotel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Williams, S. (2005). Culture and employee attitude-Introduction. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://www.personability.com.au/s4.html
West, A., & Purvis, E. (1992). Hotel design: The need to develop a strategic approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 4(1), 15–22.
Wong, S., & Keung, C. (2000). Tourists’ perceptions of hotel frontline employees’ questionable job-related behavior. Tourism Management, 21(2), 121–134.
Wu, J. H. C., Lin, Y. C., & Hsu, F. S. (2011). An empirical analysis of synthesizing the effects of service quality, perceived value, corporate image and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the transport industry: A case of Taiwan high-speed rail. Innovative Marketing, 7 (3), 83–100.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 35–48.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.
Copyright of Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
