net/publication/235361370
CITATIONS READS
647 12,394
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by J. Joseph Cronin. Jr. on 31 March 2015.
Joumal cf Marketing
Vol. 58 (January 1994), 125-131 SERVPERF Versus SERVQUAL /125
formance-based paradigm over the disconfirtnation-based tations could refiect the general ambiguity inherent in the ser
SERVQUAL paradigm. vice quality literature regarding the distinction between ser-
In perhaps the most telling evidence to date, one of the vice quality and consumer satisfaction, rather than clear sup-
original coauthors of SERVQUAL recently reports results port for the efficacy of the PZB gap model. The ambiguity
(Boulding, Kaka, Staelin, and Zeithaml 1993, p. 24) that ap- inherent in the service quality literature relative to these two
pear to support the conclusions of Cronin and Taylor closely related constructs also could refiect a similar ambi-
(1992) over that of PZB (1994): guity in consumers' and managers' understanding of the dif-
ference between service quality and consumer satisfaction—
Our results are incompatible with both the one-dimen-
sional view of expectations and the gap formation for ser- ambiguity that possibly is refiected in the focus groups con-
vice quality [italics added]. Instead, we find that service ducted by PZB (1985). However, as is depicted in the pre-
quality is directly influenced only by perceptions [of vious discussion, this same ambiquity is not evident in the
performance]. consumer satisfaction literature.
Given the arguments presented here, along with the
Other recent studies bear out these conclusions. Peter,
growing body of literature criticizing the five-dimension
Churchill, and Brown (1992) present a compelling argu-
conceptualization (cf. Babakus and Boiler 1992; Babakus
ment of why difference scores (such as those employed by
and Mangold 1992; Brown, Churchill, and Peter 1992; Ol-
the SERVQUAL scale operationalization) should be
iver 1993; Patterson and Johnson 1993; Peter, Churchill,
avoided. Brown, Churchill, and Peter (1992) specifically ex-
and Brown 1992), the assertion that "little if any theoretical
tend these arguments to an investigation of the
or empirical evidence supports the relevance of the expecta-
SERVQUAL scale and conclude that there are serious prob-
tions-performance gap as the basis for measuring service
lems in conceptualizing service quality as a difference score
quality" (Cronin and Taylor 1992, p. 56) appears
(see Brown, Churchill, and Peter 1992 for a comprehensive
creditable.
discussion of their criticisms). Babakus and Boiler (1992)
and Babakus and Mangold (1992) also report results support- Two minor points relative to this discussion also should
ing the use of performance-based measures of service qual- be addressed. PZB (1994) question our use of Bolton and
ity over gap measures. Drew (1991) to support our performance-based measure-
Revisiting the conceptual foundations of the ment of service quality. Slightly farther down the page
SERVQUAL model provides some insight into the conflict- from the quote offered by PZB (1994) is a second: "(A) cus-
ing results. Origins of the "gap" model can be found in the tomer' s assessment of overall service quality is also directly
early writings on disconfirmation in the consumer satisfac- affected by perceptions of performance levels" (p. 383). In
tion literature (Oliver 1977, 1980a, 1981). Oliver proposes addition, PZB (1994) question our use of Mazis, Ahtola,
that consumers make 1 ' 'better-than-expected/worse-than- and Klippel (1975) on the basis of the fact that the paper
expected'' (disconfirmation) judgments on the basis of a dealt with neither service quality nor tested performance-
comparison of product performance to expectations in the de- based measures incorporating expectations. A thorough read-
termination of consumer satisfaction. Though conceptually ing of this article, however, does suggest that the inclusion
consumers can make arithmetic or calculated comparisons of importance weights does not enhance the predictive abil-
between expectations and performance (as in a car's gas ity of attitude models. Because the use of such weights was
mileage), Oliver (1981; Oliver and Bearden 1985) argues examined in our study, the reference does not appear
that they may not because of measurement failure or effort inappropriate.
or because the relevant performance dimensions cannot be
quantified (e.g., aesthetics, pleasure). Thus, the perceived Attitude Formation Versus Attitude Measurement
summary disconfirmation judgment is sufficient as a causal The second conceptual issue raised by PZB (1994) is
agent for satisfaction. whether service quality measurement is properly associated
In situations in which expectation and performance data with attitude formation or attitude measurement. We recog-
are available, at least to the researcher, it is possible to infer nize that the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales are tools
the consumer's disconfirmation through arithmetic means. designed for the measurement of service quality; that is, the
Oliver (1980b), Oliver and Bearden (1985), and Swan and measurement of a specific long-term attitude at a single
Trawick (1981) have tested variations of this inferential point in time. Indeed, much of the conceptual support for
measure in models including a summary measure and have using performance-based measures of service quality atti-
shown that the summary measure mediates the effect of the tudes over disconfirmation-based measures is derived from
inferential measure on satisfaction. This would appear to be this distinction.
a reasonable finding because consumer perceptions, not cal- Specifically, a review of the existing literature identifies
culations, govern behavior. In this context, the an apparent consensus regarding a fundamental distinction
SERVQUAL gap measure is analogous to the inferential dis- between service quality and consumer satisfaction: Service
confirmation measure, and is thus an incomplete form of quality is a long-term attitude, whereas consumer satisfac-
the summary comparative judgment consumers might use tion is a transitory judgment made on the basis of a specific
in quality decisions. service encounter (cf. Bitner 1990; Bolton and Drew 1991;
Thus, PZB's (1985, 1988) generalization of the satisfac- Cronin and Taylor 1992; Oliver 1993; Patterson and
tion paradigm to service quality evaluations based on the Johnson 1993). This distinction is refiected in the concep-
qualitative evidence apparent in their focus group interpre- tual domains of the relevant constructs. Service quality per-
SERVICE
QUALITY
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X22
TABLE 1 TABLE 2
The Intercorrelations of the Five-F«;tor Confimutory Factor Analysis Paran^er
Conceptualization of Service Quaiity Estimates For Five-Factor {hntercorreiirited)
Conceptuaiization of Service Quaiity
Tangibles 1.000 703 ^458 iil4 .478
Reliability .457 1.000 .661 .744 .533 Pest Dry Fast
Responsiveness .240 .680 1.000 .644 .687 Parameter Banks Control Cleaning Food
Assurances .523 .854 .566 1.000 .559 Chi Square 333.26 464.08 395.01 346.10
Empathy .256 .854 .772 .539 1.000 d.f. 199 199 199 199
P .000 .000 .000 .000
Note: Cell entries below the diagonal are for banks and those .867 .810 .828 .862
above are for pest control. .824
.831 .758 .781
.204 .247 .257 .255
Tangibles 1.000 .316 .197 .282 .165
Reliability .638 1.000 .686 .525 .449 aGoodness of fit
Responsiveness .319 .495 1.000 .620 .686 >>Adjusted goodness of fit
Assurances .589 .846 .503 1.000 .575 <=Root mean square residual
Empathy .395 .490 .573 .645 1.000
Note: Cell entries below the diagonal are for dry cleaners and those when tested for a tire store, placement center, and dental
above are for fast food. clinic.
Cronin and Taylor (1992) in effect use the two sets of
Cronin and Taylor (1992) actually suggest that both items (SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) as two indices rather
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF can be treated unidimension- than as two factor-based scales after failing to identify a con-
ally after a five-factor solution failed to fit the SERVQUAL sistent factor structure across the four industries examined
items in any of the four industries. Here we confess that in the study. The difference is that an index is an exact lin-
some of Cronin and Taylor's (1992) wording is potentially ear combination of observed items. The dimensionality of
confusing, though the treatment of the SERVQUAL items the items of an index used as an observed variable is not rel-
is quite consistent with the extant literature. For example. evant. The point of the comparison of the two models is to
Carman (1990) also demonstrates that the SERVQUAL determine which of the indices is the superior measure of ser-
scale fails to exhibit the predicted five-factor structure vice quality. The conclusions drawn in the research are not
REFERENCES
Babakus, Emin and Gregory W. Boiler (1992), "An Empirical As- Mazis, Michael B., Olli T. Ahtola, and R. Eugene Klippel (1975),
sessment of the SERVQUAI^ Scale," Joumal of Business Re- "A Comp^son of Four Multi-Attribute Models in the Predic-
search, 24, 253-68. tion of Consumer Attitudes," Joumal of Consumer Research,
and W. Glenn Mangold (1992), "Adapting the 2 (June), 38-52.
SERVQUAL Scale to Hospital Services: An Empirical Inves- Oliver, Richard L. (1980), "A Cognitive Model of the Antece-
tigation," Health Service Research, 26 (6), 767-80. dents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions," Joumal of
Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), "Evaluating Service Encounters: The Ef- Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-9.
fects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses," Jour- (1993), "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and
nal of Marketing, 54 (2), 69-82. Service Satisfaction: Compatible Goals, Different Concepts,"
Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991), "A Multistage Model in Advances in Services Marketing and Management: Re-
of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value," seareh and Practice, Vol. 2, Teresa A. Swartz, David E.
Joumal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 375-84. Bowen, and Stephen W. Brown, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. Press.
Zeithaml (1993),' 'A Dynamic Process Model of Service Qual- Parasuraman, A., Valarie Zeithaml, and Leonard Berry (1985), "A
ity: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions," Joumal of Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for
Marketing Research, 30 (February 1993), 7-27. Future Research," Joumal of Marketing, 49 (Fall) 41-50.
Brown, Tom J., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and J. Paul Peter (1992), Parasuraman, A., Valarie Zeithaml, and Leonard Berry (1988),
"Improving the Measurement of Service Quality," A.C. "SERVQUAL: A Multi Item Scale for Measuring Consumer
Nielsen working paper #91-4, University of Wisconsin— Perception of Service Quality," Journal of Retailing, 64
Madison, Madison, WI. (Spring) 12-W.
Carman, James M. (1990), "Consumer Perceptions of Service , , and (1991), "Refinement and Re-
Quality: an Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimension," Jour- assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale," Joumal of Retailing,
nal of Retailing, 66 (1), 33-55. 67 (4), 420^50.
Cronin, J. Joseph, Jr. and Steven A. Taylor (1992), "Measuring Ser- -, and (1994), "Reassessment of Ex-
vice Quality: A Reexamination and Extension," Joumal of pectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service
Marketing, 56 (3), 55-68. Quality: Implications for Further Research," Joumal of Market-
Gardial, Sarah Fisher, D. Scott Clemons, Robert B. Woodruff, ing, 5S {January), 111-24.
David W. Schumann and Mjiry Jane Bums (1994), "Compar- Patterson, Paul G. and Lester W. Johnson (1993). "Disconfirma-
ing Consumers' Recall of Prepurchase and Postpurchase Prod- tion of Expectations and the Gap Model of Service Quality: An
uct Evaluation Experiences," Joumal of Consumer Research, Integrated Paradigm,'' Joumal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dis-
forthcoming. satisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, forthcoming.
, Robert B. Woodruff, Mary Jane Bums, David W. Schu- Peter, J. Paul, Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Tom J. Brown (1992),
mann, and Scot Clemons (1994), "Comparison Standards: Ex- "Caution in the Use of Difference Scores as Measures of Mar-
ploring Their Variety and the Circumstances Surrounding keting Constructs," A. C. Nielsen working paper #91-2, Uni-
Their Use," Joumal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, versity of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, WI.
and Complaining Behavior, forthcoming. Zeithaml, Valarie, Leonard Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1993),
Hawes, J. M. and C.P. Rao (1985), "Using Importance-Perfor- "The Nature and Determinant of Customer Expectation of Ser-
mance Analysis to Develop Health Care Marketing Strate- vice, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (1),
gies," Joumal of Health Care Marketing, 5 (4), 19-25. 1-12.